PERSPICUOUS  DEMONSTRATION  of 


H ow  LOGIC  stands  ready  to 
TEACH  US  TO  DO 

Frank,  Honest,  Sincere,  Telic 
THINKING; 

A PREREQUISITE  TO 

Frank,  Honest,  Sincere,  Courteous 
STATING; 

A PREREQUISITE  TO 

an  enlightened  altruistic 
CONSCIENCE, 

VERACITY,  and 
SINCERE  COURTESY; 

ALL  PREREQUISITES  TO 

Universal  Social  Harmony, 

thus  incidentally  terminating  the 
present  continuous  legal  wounding  and  killing 
of  PEDESTRIANS. 


Copyright  1921 
By  JACOB  FRECH 


Acme  Printing  Co.,  Washington,  D.  C. 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 


( f, ! 


A 

JAN  19 '37 


U.  of  I.  Library 


1 j > 


9324-S 


( o 1 4"  i % (o  Q. 

F ? 1 f3 


SUBJECT:  The  fallacy-breeding  power  of  natural  illusion  and 

of  natural  prejudice  (or  prepossession)  and  their  influences  re 

certain  traffic  safety  laws;  and  suggestion  of  a remedy. 

Washington,  D.  C., 

May  2,  1918. 

The  Honorable  Commissioners 

of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Gentlemen : 

1.  Sometimes  an  analogon  is  more  cogent  than  a direct  ex- 
ample. Let  one  try  to  fix  his  gaze  as  well  as  possible  on  a point 
on  the  outer  circumference  of  a tire  of  a wheel  of  an  auto  moving 
at  any  degree  of  uniform  speed.  This  point  will  be  exactly  where 
the  outer-end  of  a diameter,  (or  of  an  imaginary  spoke  having 
neither  breadth  nor  thickness)  would  be.  Assume  that  he  does 
this  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  he  can  see  that  that 
observed  point  (or  that  part  of  the  tire)  moves  (through  space) 
faster  or  slower  at  one  time  in  any  one  uniform  revolution  than 
it  moves  at  some  other  time  during  that  same  revolution. 

2.  He  may  find  it  practically  impossible  to  make  that  observa- 
tion. The  eye  is  not  quick  enough  to  watch  the  relative  successive 
rates  of  speed  of  the  point  during  a very  quick  revolution  and  the 
result  must  be  an  illusion;  and  in  a slow  revolution  the  informa- 
tion gained  by  the  eye  of  an  observer  not  logically  inclined,  may 
be  obscured  or  confused  or  warped  by  a natural  prejudice  or  pre- 
possession. 

3.  This  natural  prejudice  or  prepossession  is  embodied  in  the 
following  fallacious  major  premise:  whenever  an  auto  wheel 
moves  at  a uniform  rate  of  speed : every  part  of  its  tire  moves  at  a 
uniform  rate  of  speed:  for  otherwise  the  tire  would  split.  This 
prejudice  or  prepossession  is  an  undefined  feeling  rather  than  an 
explicit  thought  or  an  explicit  judgment. 

4.  However,  if  the  eye  were  quick  enough,  and  if  the  mind 
is  freed  from  certain  natural  prejudices  or  prepossessions,  and  if 
the  observer’s  reasoning  powers  were  logically  trained  he  could 
observe  and  realize  the  following  facts: 

(a)  That  the  point  (call  it  P)  on  which  his  gaze  is  supposedly 
fixed  moves  during  any  one  entire  revolution  through  space  faster 
than  the  auto  moves. 


1 


(o  I 4"  » $ (o  fc- 
F?1f 


1 

1/3 


nr) 


I ^ 


X 


SUBJECT:  The  fallacy-breeding  power  of  natural  illusion  and 

of  natural  prejudice  (or  prepossession)  and  their  influences  re 

certain  traffic  safety  laws ; and  suggestion  of  a remedy. 

Washington,  D.  C., 

May  2,  1918. 

The  Honorable  Commissioners 

of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Gentlemen : 

1.  Sometimes  an  analogon  is  more  cogent  than  a direct  ex- 
ample. Let  one  try  to  fix  his  gaze  as  well  as  possible  on  a point 
on  the  outer  circumference  of  a tire  of  a wheel  of  an  auto  moving 
at  any  degree  of  uniform  speed.  This  point  will  be  exactly  where 
the  outer-end  of  a diameter,  (or  of  an  imaginary  spoke  having 
neither  breadth  nor  thickness)  would  be.  Assume  that  he  does 
this  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  he  can  see  that  that 
observed  point  (or  that  part  of  the  tire)  moves  (through  space) 
faster  or  slower  at  one  time  in  any  one  uniform  revolution  than 
it  moves  at  some  other  time  during  that  same  revolution. 

2.  He  may  find  it  practically  impossible  to  make  that  observa- 
tion. The  eye  is  not  quick  enough  to  watch  the  relative  successive 
rates  of  speed  of  the  point  during  a very  quick  revolution  and  the 
result  must  be  an  illusion;  and  in  a slow  revolution  the  informa- 
tion gained  by  the  eye  of  an  observer  not  logically  inclined,  may 
be  obscured  or  confused  or  warped  by  a natural  prejudice  or  pre- 
possession. 

3.  This  natural  prejudice  or  prepossession  is  embodied  in  the 
following  fallacious  major  premise:  whenever  an  auto  wheel 
moves  at  a uniform  rate  of  speed : every  part  of  its  tire  moves  at  a 
uniform  rate  of  speed:  for  otherwise  the  tire  would  split.  This 
prejudice  or  prepossession  is  an  undefined  feeling  rather  than  an 
explicit  thought  or  an  explicit  judgment. 

4.  However,  if  the  eye  were  quick  enough,  and  if  the  mind 
is  freed  from  certain  natural  prejudices  or  prepossessions,  and  if 
the  observer’s  reasoning  powers  were  logically  trained  he  could 
observe  and  realize  the  following  facts: 

(a)  That  the  point  (call  it  P)  on  which  his  gaze  is  supposedly 
fixed  moves  during  any  one  entire  revolution  through  space  faster 
than  the  auto  moves. 


1 


May  2,  1918 


(b)  That  P moves  very  much  faster  than  the  auto  when  P is 
near  the  highest  possible  place  in  the  wheel  (call  it  T for  top),  and 
that  it  (P)  ceases  to  move  (comes  to  a momentary  rest)  at  the 
instant  when  it  is  at  the  lowest  possible  place  (call  it  B for  bottom) , 
i.  e.  P stops  at  B (on  the  ground)  as  it  completes  its  forward- 
downward  direction,  makes  an  angular  change  in  its  direction  and 
starts  with  a bound  on  its  next  upward-forward  direction  towards 
T (top). 

(c)  That  the  rate  of  speed  of  P during  every  revolution  varies 
increasingly  from  no  speed  at  B (ground)  to  maximum  speed  at  T 
(top),  and  thence  varies  decreasingly  to  no  speed  again  at  B. 

(d)  That  regardless  of  the  regularity  or  irregularity  of  speed 
of  the  auto,  P moves  through  space  two  diameters  of  the  wheel 
while  going  from  B to  T or  from  T to  B. 

5.  If,  as  herein  intimated,  the  eye  cannot  accurately  report 
to  the  mind  these  properties  of  a moving  auto  tire,  the  question 
may  well  be  asked,  How  can  the  mind  obtain  or  imbibe  that  infor- 
mation, and  become  convinced  of  its  truth. 

6.  The  question  is  a very  proper  one,  and  in  fact  might  be 
one  of  vital  importance,  assuming  for  instance  that  one  or  more 
of  those  properties  were  a factor  in  what  is  termed  the  skidding 
of  a swift  moving  auto,  under  certain  circumstances.  The  writer 
does  not  mean  to  assert  nor  to  imply  that  it  is  such  a factor ; for 
this  illustration  is  here  used  merely  as  an  analogon  tending  to 
prove  how  easily  the  most  practical  man  can  be  self -deceived,  can 
nurse  a fallacy,  and  can  sincerely  reject  valid  argument  when  it 
does  not  appeal  to  his  practical  reason  or  so-called  common  sense. 

7.  Man  is  endowed  with  a peculiar  faculty  or  power  which 
we  call  REASON.  That  power  enables  the  mind  to  SYLLOGIZE 
or  to  THINK  or  to  REASON,  (using  this  latter  word  here  as  a 
verb).  These  three  emphasized  words  are  here  used  as  being 
practically  synonymous. 

8.  Reason  enables  us  to  analyze  or  dissect  a complex  problem 
into  its  simpler  parts  so  that  each  part  can  be  studied  by  itself; 
and  so  that  the  results  of  the  study  can  be  synthesized  and  the 
otherwise  complex  or  entangled  or  confusing  problem  be  almost 
as  clearly  or  distinctly  understood,  as  a whole,  as  can  be  so  un- 
derstood each  of  the  analyzed,  and  consequently  simpler,  parts  of 
that  complex  problem. 


2 


May  2 , 1918 

9.  LOGIC  is  the  (psychological)  science  of  reasoning  (or 
thinking  of  syllogizing) . It  tells  or  shows  us  that  by  INDUCTION 
(or  inductive  methods)  we  can  try  and  often  succeed  in  DISCOV- 
ERING and  PROVING  principles  (or  heretofore  secrets)  of 
Nature;  and  that  we  have  no  science  other  than  Logic  to  guide  our 
reason  in  systematically  doing  so;  for  logic  is  also  the  science  of 
system  and  method  in  general. 

10.  Logic  also  teaches  us  that  having  discovered  any  one  prin- 
ciple of  Nature  we  can  record  it  in  the  form  of  a GENERAL  PROP- 
OSITION (or  a TRUTH)  and  place  or  file  it  in  the  record-body  of 
SCIENCE,  thus  forming  or  creating  an  exhaustless  TRUTH- 
TREASURY,  upon  which  we  can  forever  make  drafts ; each  draft 
being  in  the  form  of  a MINOR  PREMISE  of  a deductive  syllogism ; 
so  that  whenever  we  wish,  in  any  certain  CASE,  (phenomenon, 
object,  problem,  difficulty,  etc.)  to  know  or  to  use  any  subordinate 
or  unobvious  individual  or  specific  TRUTH  INVOLVED  (or  in- 
explicitly  contained  or  embodied)  in  such  a recorded  or  known 
general  proposition,  we  can  by  the  exercise  of  our  trained  logical 
powers  or  ingenuity,  obtain  that  involved  individual  or  specific 
truth  by  DEDUCTION  (or  deductive  methods)  ; by  using  that 
general  proposition  as  a MAJOR  PREMISE  of  the  necessarily  re- 
sulting deductive  SYLLOGISM. 

11.  When  a deductive  syllogism  is  in  the  First  Figure,  it  has 
the  following  attributes,  some  of  which  are  peculiar  to  that  figure, 
while  the  others  are  common  also  to  the  other  three  figures ; 

The  logical  subject  of  the  Major  Premise  is  unambiguously  des- 
ignated the  MIDDLE  TERM  of  the  syllogism.  These  two  combined 
words  never  have  any  other  meaning.  Their  meaning  is  as  unam- 
biguous as  is  the  legal  definition  of  a United  States  Treasury  Note: 
and  the  function  and  the  univocality  of  the  middle  term  of  a syllo- 
gism is  as  important  in  our  daily  reasonings  as  is  the  function  and 
the  univaluity  (if  the  term  is  permissible)  of  a Treasury  Note  in 
our  commercial  transactions. 

12.  It  is  probably  as  certain  as  it  is  remarkable  and  lamentable 
that  many  educated  persons  have  had  no  opportunity  to  have 
knowledge  of  what  the  words  Middle  Term  stand  for;  and  that 
probably  very  many  educated  persons  have  no  adequate  knowledge 
of  what  the  words  Middle  Term  stand  for;  or  at  least  do  not  use 
them  in  any  important  discussion  or  argument ; in  which  their  use, 
if  also  understood  by  the  addressees,  would  sometimes  sooner  bring 
the  case  to  a needed  clear-cut  issue;  or  would  sometimes  result  in 


3 


May  2,  1918 


the  framing  of  more  precise  and  effective  regulations.  Probably 
much  of  each  of  the  ethical  treaties  of  the  Nineteenth  and  earlier 
centuries  is  practically  valueless  or  worse  because  the  derived  con- 
clusions are  drawn  from  dogmatic  premises  or  from  premises  con- 
taining either  an  Undistributed  Middle  Term  or  an  Ambiguous 
Middle  Term  or  some  other  violation  of  the  rules  of  the  syllogism. 

13.  An  intelligent  person  may  well  say  that  he  never  has  heard 
of  a Middle  Term,  and  consequently  think  that  neither  he  nor  his 
associates  use  any  Middle  Term,  either  implicitly  or  explicitly,  con- 
fusedly or  correctly.  Likewise  some  intelligent  person  may  also 
well  say  he  never  has  heard  of  syntax , or  metaphor  or  prose, 
whereas  whoever  hears  him  or  reads  hi$  communications,  knows 
that  that  person  is,  or  was,  wrestling  somehow,  fumblingly  or 
otherwise,  with  syntax  and  metaphors  while  trying  to  express  his 
thoughts  in  prose. 

14.  As  already  stated  the  logical  subject  of  the  Major  Premise 
is  designated  the  MIDDLE  TERM  of  the  syllogism  and  it  also  is 
(or  becomes)  the  predicate  of  the  MINOR  PREMISE ; the  logical 
predicate  of  the  Major  Premise  is  unambiguously  designated  the 
MAJOR  TERM,  and  is  (or  becomes)  also  the  predicate  of  the  de- 
duced CONCLUSION.  The  certain  CASE  (phenomenon,  object, 
problem,  difficulty,  etc.)  that  the  mind  has  before  it  when  feeling 
the  impulse  to  syllogize  deductively  is  unambiguously  designated 
the  MINOR  TERM  of  the  syllogism,  and  is  and  becomes  the  subject 
of  both  the  Minor  Premise  and  of  the  deduced  Conclusion. 

15.  Now  reverting  to  the  seemingly  paradoxical  movements  of 
P which  the  eye  can  not  easily  observe,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that 
probably  more  than  2000  years  ago,  relevant  major  premises  were 
discovered  and  recorded  by  scientists  which  enable  the  reason  to 
satisfy  itself  that  the  four  stated  propositions,  par.  4,  regarding  the 
movements  of  P are  true,  notwithstanding  that  autos  and  auto  tires 
were  not  then  known. 

16.  The  following  table  represents  what  logicians  would  prob- 
ably term  a Deductive  Syllogism  of  the  First  Figure  in  the  quantity 
of  Extension : a figure  to  which  the  other  three  syllogistic  figures 
are  said  to  be  reducible.  This  table  may  possibly  serve  to  demon- 
strate that  when  those  two  propositions  of  the  syllogism  that  are 
termed  Premises,  (Major  Premise  and  Minor  Premise)  so  meet  in 
the  mind  that  the  mind,  by  a fortunate  or  sagacious  act  sees  or 
realizes  their  mutual  relevancy,  or  when  the  two  propositions  are 


4 


May  2,  1918 


adequately  brought  by  one  person  to  the  attention  of  another  sin- 
cere person,  the  theretofore  possibly  unrealized  conclusion  instantly 
and  certainly  flashes  from  them , like  a spark  from  flint  and  steel. 
The  two  propositions  may  have  been  independent  or  segregated 
pieces  of  information  long  listlessly  wambling  around  in  the  sub- 
conscious mind,  or  lying  inactive  and  unappreciated  like  Gray’s 
gem  of  purest  ray  serene,  never  until  then  explicitly  coming  to- 
gether or  copulated  in  the  conscious  mind. 


Names 

of 

Propositions 

S or 

Individual  or 

Case  or 

Minor  Term 

Copula 

M or 

Species  [or 
Middle  Term 

Copula 

P or 

Genus  or 

Major  Term 

Minor 

Premise 

Major 

Premise 

A point  on  the 
outer  circumfer- 
ence of  a tire  of 
a wheel  of  a mov- 
ing auto 

is 

A point  on  the 
circumference  of  a 
circle  rolled  along 
a straight  line 

Ditto 

is 

A point  that 
generates  a com- 
mon  cycloid 
(which  necessarily 
has  the  recorded 
discovered  or  de- 
ducible  attributes 
of  a common  cy- 
cloid) 

Conclusion 

Ditto 

Ditto 

Ditto 

17.  The  foregoing  example  illustrates  that  the  peculiar  and 
irresistible  cogency  of  a syllogism  having  unquestionable  premises 
and  no  ambiguous  term  consists  of  the  fact  that  the  conclusion 
exists  in  the  premises  and  is  born  from  their  conscious  conjunc- 
tion, as  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  in  a written  syllogism  the 
conclusion  is  completely  indicable  by  dittoing  from  the  premises 
(without  writing  one  significant  word  as  a part  of  the  conclusion) . 
This  principle  of  cogency  applies  to  syllogisms  whose  premises 
relate  to  the  protection  of  pedestrians,  AND  TO  OTHER  ETH- 
ICAL PROBLEMS,  if  the  premises  contain  precise  or  clearly  de- 
fined or  unambiguous  terms  and  are  statements  of  facts  or  prin- 
ciples or  authoritative  precepts,  i.  e.,  are  unquestionable  truths 
or  unquestionable  precepts. 

18.  This  much  has  been  written  in  the  thought  that  it  may 
serve  as  evidence  of  the  utility  of  establishing , when  time  and 
opportunity  permit,  an  Executive  Departmert  of  Science,  a need 
for  which  was  developed  in  paragraphs  25  and  32,  January  5,  1917. 
That  Department  would  be  empowered  and  equipped  to  make  and 
to  promote  the  making  of  psychological  investigations,  inductively 
and  deductively. 


5 


May  2,  1918 


19.  As  one  of  many  useful  results,  the  solution  of  those  psycho- 
logical problems  of  importance  to  the  advancement  of  this  Nation 
that  have  arisen  in  this  discussion  of  the  ethical  right  hut  not  yet 
legal  right , of  a pedestrian  to  dignified  and  safe  passage  on  a street 
crossing  and  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalks,  would  he  aided  hy 
discovered  premises  of  a quality  better  than  can  be  obtained  from 
a study  of  the  data  furnished  by  the  findings  of  our  Coroner  Jury 
systems  (par.  18,  Mch.  31  and  50-d,  June  5,  1917).  These  data 
being  probably  the  only  official  data  now  made  public  on  the  sub- 
ject. Occasionally  communications  from  various  sources  are  pub- 
lished that  unintentionally  tend  to  breed  or  to  confirm  homicidal 
fallacies  on  the  subject  by  fastening  aversive  epithets  on  the  pedes- 
trians; or  by  confounding  a legal  right  to  endanger,  to  injure  and 
to  kill  timid  or  infirm  pedestrians,  with  an  ethical  right  to  do  so. 
(Par.  21,  June  5,  1917),  and  expressing  the  notion  right , ambigu- 
ously by  using  only  the  unqualified  word  right. 

20.  When  the  notion,  or  word,  right  is  the  middle  term  and  it 
is  unconsciously  or  unsuspectedly  interpreted  as  an  ethical  right  in 
one  premise  and  as  a legal  right  in  the  other  premise,  and  if  the 
two  classes  of  right  differ  in  those  premises,  the  syllogism  has 
nominally  or  audibly  or  visibly  not  more  than  the  three  required 
terms ; but  actually  it  has  four  terms , by  reason  of  the  duplicity  of 
the  middle  term.  Logicians  term  such  a syllogism  a quadruped , 
and  as  it  violates  the  rule  that  a syllogism  can  not  have  more  than 
three  terms,  that  syllogism  is  not  a valid  basis  for  its  deduced  con- 
clusion. 

James  McCosh,  former  President  of  Princeton  College,  in  his 
able  treatise  on  Logic  says: 

“In  a syllogism  there  can  only  be  one  middle  term.  It  is 
only  thus  we  can  bring  the  extreme  (minor  and  major  terms) 
into  comparison.  When  a middle  term  is  ambiguous  we  may 
have  two  middle  terms  in  sense  though  not  in  sound:  and  we 
are  ever  liable  to  compare  the  one  extreme  with  the  middle 
used  in  one  sense,  and  the  other  extreme  with  the  middle  used 
in  another  sense.  Hence  the  fallacy  of  ambiguous  Middle. 

“Many  valuable  practical  as  well  as  scientific  ends  are  to 
be  gained  by  an  acquaintance  with  logical  principles  and  the 
violations  of  them.  It  is  most  important,  for  the  guidance  of 
our  thoughts,  to  know  what  are  the  essential  steps  involved  in 
inference;  that  in  most  reasoning  there  is  a major  premise 
implied  in  the  form  of  a general  principle.  By  logical  training 


6 


May  2,  1918 


the  mind  is  led  to  look  keenly  into  the  meaning  of  terms  and 
the  relation  of  terms  to  one  another,  and  to  place  the  case 
fairly  before  the  mind. 

“How  useful,  too,  to  know  what  are  the  common  forms  of 
invalid  reasoning ; to  be  aware  of  the  places  where  error  lurks; 
so  that  we  may  be  on  our  guard  against  its  insidious  attacks , 
or  ready  if  need  be  to  seek  it  out  and  expose  it  to  view  and 
hunt  it  to  death.  * * * A prejudiced  heart  presents  a par- 

tial, an  exaggerated,  a distorted  case  to  the  judicial  power 
* * * our  erroneous  judgments  and  invalid  reasonings 

spring  from  the  prepossessions  of  the  heart,  * * leading  us 

to  trace  effects  to  wrong  causes  and  deceiving  us  by  fair 
appearances  and  specious  analogies.  * * * 

“It  is  one  of  the  advantages  arising  from  science , from 
honest  discussion , and  progress  of  thought  generally,  that  it 
gives  greater  precision  to  language  by  compelling  us  to  dis- 
tinguish the  diverse  things  wrapt  up  in  one  complex  phrase, 
and  to  get  a separate  term  for  each.  It  was  disputed  whether 
the  syllogism  was  or  was  not  an  invention  of  Aristotle,  and 
both  parties  were  right  and  both  ivrong  according  to  the  use 
they  made  of  the  term.  Such  discussion  led  to  a distinction 
being  drawn  between  invention  and  discovery,  the  former 
being  confined  to  the  devising  of  something  new,  and  the  latter 
to  the  finding  out  of  what  before  existed,  and  we  now  deny  that 
Aristotle  invented  the  syllogism,  while  we  claim  for  him  that 
he  discovered  the  syllogism  to  be  the  form  to  which  all  reason- 
ing can  be  reduced.” 

22.  John  Grier  Hibben,  Professor  of  Logic  in  Princeton  Uni 
versity,  announces  the  following  in  his  treatise  on  Inductive  Logic 

“In  any  course  of  reasoning  concerning  the  conduct  of  our 
every  day  affairs  or  in  scientific  investigation  we  reason  both 
inductively  and  deductively  in  a complete  process.  * * In 

the  actual  experiences  of  life  we  do  not  find  our  premises 
ready  made.  They  are  the  result  of  wide  observation  and 
patient  investigation  and  experience.  * * Knowledge  is 

capable  (susceptible)  of  arrangement  in  a self-consistent  and 
harmonious  system  and  which  moreover  in  its  content  and 
form  faithfully  represents  objective  reality. 

“It  is  the  peculiar  function  of  logical  analysis  to  discrimi- 
nate between  the  relevant  and  the  irrelevant. 


May  2,  1918 

“It  should  be  kept  prominently  in  mind  that  surface  dif- 
ferences may  hide  essential  resemblances  and  that  surface  re- 
semblance may  hide  essential  differences.,, 

Sir  John  Stoddart,  in  his  Philosophy  of  Language,  says : 

“There  are  two  modes  of  acquiring  knowledge  with  refer- 
ence to  the  distinctions  of  Genus , Species  and  Individual;  the 
ascending  or  inductive  mode  and  the  descending  or  deductive 
mode.  These  are  the  two  wings  of  the  human  mind.” 

23.  Following  are  extracts  from  paragraphs  25,  32  and  33  of 
January  5,  1917 : 

(Par.  25,  Jan.  5,  1917.)  Legislators  have  it  in  their  power  to 
ignore  psychological  and  ethical  principles.  In  fact  some  of  these 
principles  they  can  not  yet  apply  or  be  guided  by,  because  some 
have  not  been  discovered  or  proved ; for  this  a scientific  department 
of  the  Government  is  needed. 

(Par.  32,  Jan.  5,  1917.)  The  legislator  can  at  any  time  change 
the  law  he  made  whenever  he  finds  that  it  does  not  produce  the 
desired  effect,  or  that  it  does  avoidable  evil.  A principle  can  not  be 
changed.  A principle  that  causes  evil  can  be  counteracted  by 
judiciously  bringing  other  appropriate  counteracting  principles 
into  play.  To  discover  and  classify  or  find  the  relative  relations 
of  principles  is  the  business  and  province  of  SCIENCE ; a branch 
that  possibly  may  in  the  future  become  an  important  Government 
department , whose  business  it  would  be  to  discover  important  psy- 
chological principles  and  to  disseminate  them.  If  there  were  a 
Science  Department  in  existence,  questions  or  suggestions  of  prin- 
ciples such  as  those  affecting  the  welfare  of  more  than  200,000 
citizens  per  year  (par.  16,  Jan.  5,  1917)  could  properly  be  referred 
to  that  department  with  the  reasonable  hope  that  adequate  scien- 
tific refutation  or  confirmation  would  be  furnished  with  syllogistic 
completeness  (par.  6,  Nov.  25,  1916).  Such  a Department  would 
become  a Department  of  useful  knowledge  or  of  general  informa- 
tion that  is  not  to  be  found  in  other  existing  Governmental  depart- 
ments. It  would  necessarily  classify  its  information,  because 
science  is  classified  knowledge,  and  it  could  furnish  needed  infor- 
mation regarding  principles  on  request,  or  state  the  exact  place  or 
places  in  which  that  information  can  be  found,  viz;  one  or  more 
named  standard  books  or  pamphlets  which  treat  only  of  that  prin- 
ciple, or  what  pages  of  one  or  more  named  composite  books  or  pam- 
phlets contain  standard  articles  on  that  principle.  This  would  en- 
able scientific  investigators  to  make  useful  and  wonderful  progress. 


8 


May  2,  1918 

(Par.  33,  Jan.  5,  1917.)  This  would  greatly  facilitate  the 
framing  of  adequate  safety  laws,  and  the  improvement  of  experi- 
mental safety-laws,  and  consequently  would  aid  in  improving  the 
Police  Regulations  of  the  District  so  as  to  tend  to  insure  dignified 
and  safe  passage  of  pedestrians  on  street  crossings  and  on  road- 
ways having  no  sidewalks. 

24.  In  a certain  sense  every  case  and  every  separable  part  of  a 
case  and  every  questioned  term  in  a case  brought  into  a court  is 
analogous  to  or  is  in  fact  a minor  notion  or  minor  term  of  a rele- 
vant syllogism.  The  relevant  law  (or  law-clause)  and  law  prece- 
dents, (being  major  premises)  contain  respectively  the  various 
relevant  middle  terms  with  which  these  minor  terms  can  be  com- 
pared. 

25.  Every  police  officer  who  observes  an  attempt  or  an  act 
that  he  thinks  comes  within  his  disciplinary  province  instantly 
forms  in  his  mind  a notion  of  that  attempt  or  act,  which  notion  it 
may  be  useful  here  to  designate  syllogistically  a minor  notion;  if 
he,  or  any  one  for  him,  names  that  notion,  the  name  of  that  notion 
is  a syllogistic  minor  term.  He  then  bethinks  himself  as  to  whether 
there  is  a middle  notion  (or  a middle  term)  in  a major  premise 
(M  is  P)  of  the  law  (or  police  regulations)  which  includes  that 
minor  term,  as  does  a species  include  one  of  its  individuals.  If  he 
knows  of  such  a middle  term  then  he  feels  that  he  has  a case  that 
the  court  ought  to  take  cognizance  of.  All  that  he  has  to  do  there- 
fore is  to  try  to  establish  or  prove  his  case  or  minor  term;  if  he 
proves  it  and  if  the  judge  sees  that  if  fits  into  the  middle  term  he 
forms  the  minor  premise  (S  is  M)  and  deduces  the  conclusion 
(S  is  P)  ; and  imposes  a penalty,  if  the  law  imposes  a penalty. 
Likewise  every  prosecuting  officer  or  plaintiff’s  attorney  studies 
the  alleged  act  of  the  accused  or  the  defendant  and  has  it  in  his 
mind  as  a minor  notion  or  minor  term,  and  searches  the  law  and 
precedents  for  the  relevant  middle  term;  if  he  finds  one,  he  feels 
that  he  has  a case  that  he  can  properly  bring  into  court.  The  attor- 
ney for  the  accused  or  the  defendant  tries  to  show  that  the  alleged 
minor  term  is  wrong,  or  if  he  cannot  do  that,  he  tries  to  show  that 
it  is  not  an  individual  of,  or  included  in,  the  cited  middle  term, 
(S  is  not  M)  ; etc.,  etc. 

26.  As  some  of  our  laws  are  far  from  their  ethical  goal,  and 
as  some  harmful  or  vicious  though  not  yet  illegal  acts  must  some- 
times be  disciplined  although  a relevant  middle  can  not  be  found , 
(because  our  laws  are  in  some  instances  far  in  arrears  of  the  needs 


9 


May  2,  1918 

of  society),  an  accidental  attribute  of  the  harmful  or  vicious  act 
is  taken  as  a minor  because  a middle  can  be  found  for  that  acci- 
dental attribute.  For  instance,  there  being  no  middle  or  no  en- 
forcible  middle  for  the  act  of  killing  a pedestrian  while  the  driver 
is  not  exceeding  speed  limits  'the  auto  driver  may  be  brought  to 
trial  on  an  accidental  minor,  such  as  having  no  license,  for  which  a 
middle  can  be  readily  found.  Also,  the  middle,  obstructing  traffic , 
might  be  used  for  picketing  a store,  if  the  pickets  did  not  keep  con- 
stantly moving;  whereas  the  ethical  injury  lies  in  the  one  case  in 
the  avoidable  killing  and  in  the  other  case  in  the  picketing,  it 
being  a public  continuous  peace-breach  provoking  discourtesy. 
(See  par.  47.) 

27.  No  conscientious  person  can  satisfy  his  mind  that  he 
ought  or  ought  not  to  have  done  a certain  thing,  or  ought  or  ought 
not  to  have  done  it  in  a certain  way,  except  by  conscious  or  uncon- 
scious syllogism.  Conscience  is  consequently  as  liable  to  fallacy  as 
is  any  other  mode  of  illogical  or  unenlightened  or  untrained  rea- 
soning. 

y 

28.  When  we  apply  to  questions  affecting  the  legal  protec- 
tion of  the  human  mind,  or  the  body,  or  life,  a principle  of  Eco- 
nomics instead  of  a principle  of  Ethics,  when  the  two  differ,  we 
may  be  falling  into  homicidal  fallacy ; for  Perry  in  his  treatise  on 
Political  Economy  says  that  Ethical  Science  appeals  only  to  an 
enlightened  conscience  whereas  Political  Economy  appeals  only  to 
an  enlightened  selfishness  and  that  exchanges  are  made  because 
they  are  mutually  advantageous  and  for  no  other  reason. 

29.  In  the  metaphoric  exchange  made  between  the  auto  driver 
and  the  pedestrian  by  the  legislators  the  mutuality  of  the  advan- 
tages is  nullified  by  the  fact  that  the  auto  drivers  have  on  the  street 
or  roadway  one  or  more  powerful,  swiftly  moving,  danger-threat- 
ening machines  and  the  pedestrian  has  only  his  body ; and  with  re- 
gard to  the  rhetoric  of  the  laws  and  their  interpretation  and  en- 
forcement, the  advantage  is  again  one-sided  as  is  evident  from 
these  letters  and  from  an  article  in  a Washington  newspaper  of  the 
21st  ultimo,  which  reads  as  follows: 

“The  motorists  in  various  States  are  constantly  on  the 
watch  for  offensive  legislation,  which  is  invariably  introduced 
by  overzealous  legislators  each  year. 

“The  answer  to  the  whole  thing  is  for  each  motorist  to  do 
his  individual  part  in  the  fight  against  discriminating  lega- 
tion. The  best  way  to  get  results  is  through  your  own  motor 
dub. 


10 


May  2,  1918 

“In  union  there  is  strength  has  become  a trite  expression, 
but  its  truth  is  indisputable.” 

30.  There  is  no  organized  body,  association,  club  or  union  of 
pedestrians,  on  the  watch  for  or  to  fight  against  discriminating 
legislation.  With  regard  to  the  appalling  number  of  pedestrian 
deaths  and  injuries,  certain  terms  of  the  legislation  that  watchful 
and  belligerent  auto  associations  by  their  natural  self-interested 
activity  cause  to  be  satisfactory  to  the  auto  drivers , the  individual 
pedestrian  (man,  woman  or  child)  mournfully  finds  to  be  uninten- 
tionally homicidal  for  the  pedestrian. 

31.  The  natural  prejudice  and  prepossession  of  the  conscienti- 
ous and  impulsive  auto  drivers  encounter  no  corrective  suggestions 
from  pedestrians  when  the  drivers  appear  before  the  legislators 
and  recommend  so-called  Safety-first  pedestrian  legislation  or 
amendments  thereof. 

32.  The  slogan  “Safety -First”  completely  shields  the  ill- 
informed  impetuous  class  of  auto  drivers  from  needed  disciplinary 
educating ; it  means  in  effect  that,  if  a mother  escapes  an  auto  or 
street  car  she  successfully  applied  “Safety-first,”  whatever  it  stands 
for;  and  that,  if  she  is  injured  or  killed,  then  she  neglected  to  apply 
“Safety-first”  and  consequently  is  likely  to  be  pronounced  careless, 
or  negligent,  or  imprudent,  or  the  victim  of  an  accident;  lawfully 
injured  or  killed. 

33.  It  may  be  interesting  to  carefully  observe  a mother  ven- 
turing to  cross  a street  on  which  are  autos  or  a street  car.  Observe 
the  look  of  deep  concern  and  great  fear;  imagine  the  palpitations 
of  that  mother’s  heart.  If  the  thought  that  in  the  mind  of  that 
mother,  at  that  time,  there  can  exist  the  notion  or  feeling  of  care- 
lessness, or  negligence,  or  imprudence,  were  not  due  to  natural 
prejudice  or  prepossession,  it  would  have  to  be  ascribed  to  syste- 
mic absolute  subordination  of  mothers'  lives  to  traffic  economy; 
that  economy  being  measured  by  a maximum  unit  of  not  over  three 
seconds,  at  the  utmost,  and  even  then  only  whenever  a human  life 
is  in  jeopardy.  If  no  humane  remedy  is  applied,  in  the  course  of 
some  years  we  will  kill  in  our  entire  country,  one  hundred  mothers 
carrying  prayer  books  to  or  from  church,  to  one  man  reading  a 
newspaper,  assuming  that  such  a man  was  ever  killed.  When  in- 
quiry is  made,  “why  are  so  many  pedestrians  killed  and  injured?” 
one  is  likely  to  hear,  right  and  left,  the  enthymematic  innuendo, 
“Safety -first,  you  know,”  or  the  slanderous  enthymeme  “People  will 


11 


May  2,  1918 

read  newspapers  when  crossing  a street.”  Because  of  the  contin- 
ually and  widely  disseminated  non  sequitur  fallacy,  either  form  of 
answer  is  convincing ; and  there  ends  that  inquiry  into  a cause  that 
can  be  easily  counteracted  or  controlled. 

34.  The  science  of  LOGIC  has  been  given  prominence  in  this 
letter  because  science  is  in  effect  applied  logic.  Logic  is  the  mother 
of  all  science.  No  Logic , no  Science.  A Department  of  Science 
would  be  in  a sense  a department  of  applied  logic;  consequently 
were  a Department  of  Science  created  it  would  soon  see  the  need 
of  inquiring  to  what  extent  Logic  is  being  taught  in  the  public 
schools;  and  if  not  adequately  taught  WHY  NOT. 

35.  It  would  also  in  the  course  of  time  discover  that,  Ethics 
is  susceptible  of  being  treated  as  a science  by  itself , limited  solely 
to  conduct  between  human  beings,  and  towards  the  lower  animals ; 
its  principles,  or  general  propositions,  or  established  truths,  being 
established  by  the  logical  process  of  induction  and  deduction,  and 
its  nomenclature  and  terminology  made  reasonably  univocal  by 
scientific  naming  or  redefining.  This  would  probably  soon  result 
in  the  erection  of  a science  of  sincere  courtesy,  which  in  fact  em- 
braces nearly  the  entire  field  of  Ethics;  for  no  person  can  think  of 
doing,  or  begin  to  do,  what  we  would  call  wrong  of  any  kind  or 
degree,  to  any  person,  without  violating  some  species  or  principle 
of  sincere  courtesy  or  without  breaking  away  from  the  restraints 
of  sincere  courtesy. 

36.  The  importance  of  the  establishment  of  a science  of 
courtesy  to  the  problem  of  safety  of  pedestrians  is  probably  appar- 
ent from  the  fact  that  courtesy  is  necessarily  largely  treated  of  in 
this  series  of  letters. 

37.  Par.  6,  Jan.  5,  1917,  states  that  as  the  Principle  of  Cour- 
tesy is  not  yet  analyzed  and  constituted  a science,  it  is  either  little 
understood  or  inadequately  understood  however  frequently  we  use 
the  word  courtesy;  and  that  consequently  the  process  of  counter- 
acting certain  relevant  evil  psychological  principles  or  germs  is 
slow  because  as  yet  it  is  unscientifically  or  unmethodically  con- 
ducted. 

38.  The  proposed  Department  of  Science  would  probably  soon 
find  proof  of  the  foregoing  assertion,  by  realizing  that  as  indicated 
in  par.  8,  Jan.  5,  1917,  there  are  three  great  divisions  or  species  of 
courtesy  agreeing  with  or  conforming  to  the  three  necessary  organ- 
ismal  relations  of  superordinacy,  subordinacy  and  coordinacy ; that 


12 


May  2,  1918 


these  three  species  of  courtesy  require  for  precise  communicating 
or  teaching  3 nouns  to  name  them ; and  3 more  to  name  the  corre- 
sponding species  of  discourtesy.  That  these  6 species  call  for  6 
adjectives  to  specify  their  respective  qualities  and  6 adverbs  to 
specify  their  respective  modes;  such  as  the  words  graciousness, 
gracious,  graciously;  and  deference,  deferential,  deferentially,  and 
comity,  comitous,  comitousiy,  would  be,  if  all  of  these  words  were 
in  our  language,  and  were  specifically  or  scientifically  defined  as 
names  for  the  acts,  the  qualities  and  the  modes  of  the  three  species 
of  courtesy,  respectively. 

39.  Of  these  18  needed  ivords  some  of  our  best  dictionaries  do 
not  probably  contain  even  one  that  is  adequately  or  specifically  de- 
fined. Those  dictionaries  have  probably  50  or  75  words  purporting 
to  name  (1)  acts,  (2)  qualities  and  (3)  modes  of  courtesy  and  dis- 
courtesy, but  nearly  every  one  is  confusingly  or  redundantly  or 
overlappingly  or  unscientifically  or  unspecifically  defined.  Conse- 
quently when  one  of  those  words  is  used  in  a sentence  the  addressee 
has  no  information  as  to  what  species  of  courtesy  was  exercised 
or  what  species  of  discourtesy  was  exercised,  (par.  14)  ; and  con- 
sequently no  two  addresses  are  likely  to  have  the  sarhe  understand- 
ing about  it. 

40.  If  for  instance  gracious  were  defined  as  the  name  of  the 
specific  difference  of  courtesy  to  a subordinate;  deferential  as  the 
name  of  the  specific  difference  of  courtesy  to  a superior,  and  comi- 
tous as  the  name  of  the  specific  difference  of  courtesy  to  an  equal ; 
then  the  thought  presented  in  par.  8,  Jan.  5,  1917,  would  read  as 
follows,  and  would  consequently  more  precisely  present  the  in- 
tended thought: 

“Sincere  courtesy  recognizes  that  there  is  a human  or  per- 
sonal dignity  in  every  reasonable  human  being,  and  duly  hon- 
ors or  respects  that  human  being  because  of  that  dignity;  or 
duly  honors  or  respects  the  human  dignity  in  that  human 
being;  it  is  probably  immaterial  which  of  these  two  views  is 
taken;  because  as  sincere  respect  begets  sincere  respect  or 
Sincere  Courtesy  begets  Sincere  Courtesy,  the  effect  is  the 
same,  viz.  HARMONY,  in  the  form  of  mutual 
(1)  gracious  protection  or  guidance, 
and  (2)  deferential  service; 
and  of  (3)  comitous  co-operation; 
agreeing  with  the  relation  of 
(1)  Superordinacy 
and  (2)  subordinacy 
and  (3)  co-ordinacy, 


13 


May  2,  1918 

that  may  exist  between  any  two  persons  whether  the  relation 
of  ordinacy  be  of  natural  or  of  conventional  or  of  legal  origin. 
The  result  is  likely  to  be  Agreeability  and  Utility,  or  Reci- 
procity.” % 

41.  Logic  is  the  science  of  frank , honest,  sincere  thinking.  It 
is  the  science  of  Truth  or  Consistency  of  Thought  with  Fact.  It 
aims  to  prevent  self-deception.  Metaphorically  it  may  be  said  to 
be  the  plumb,  the  level,  the  square  and  the  measure  of  thinking, 
and  can  be  made  as  useful  in  mental  constructing  or  mental  archi- 
tecture as  those  instruments  are  in  physical  constructing  and  archi- 
tecture. Logic  teaches  the  principle  of  Relativity  of  Knowledge; 
that  is,  that  any  proposition  that  explicitly  affirms  any  one  thing 
and  consequently  purports  to  convey  only  that  information,  im- 
plicitly contradicts  every  proposition  that  is  inconsistent  with  that 
affirmation  and  consequently  is  equivalent  to  all  the  propositions 
that  need  to  be[  framed  to  express  those  denials.  Consequently 
when  two  propositions  are  inconsistent  with  each  other,  logic  dis- 
covers that  fact  instantly  and  questions  one  or  both;  and  thus 
tends  to  displace  Error  and  establish  Truth. 

42.  Logic  teaches  the  principles  of  naming  classes  or  notions. 
As  every  common  noun  is  a name  of  a genus,  and  as  every  adjec- 
tive or  adjectival  word,  when  used  restrictively  specifies  one  of  the 
species  of  the  genus  indicated  by  the  common  noun  which  it  quali- 
fies, the  vastness  of  the  scope  and  the  potential  utilities  of  Logic 
in  this  one  field,  is  evident. 

43.  It  teaches  the  principles  of  Defining  class  names,  thus 
aiming  at  Precision  or  Unambiguity. 

44.  This  suggests  the  thought  that  the  proposed  Department 
would  at  some  time  devote  attention  to  the  Dictionary  end  of  our 
language  and  proceed  to  desynonymize  many  of  our  words  and  dis- 
card many  of  the  self-contradictory  definitions  of  the  same  word. 
Many  of  our  words  are  defined  say,  by  Thomas  This,  Richard  That 
and  Henry  Tother,  as  having  a good  meaning  and  a bad  meaning; 
some  of  them  have  both  an  affirmative  and  a negative  meaning. 
Some  of  them  may  be  said  to  box  the  compass  in  their  meanings. 
(Par.  39.) 

45.  Words  and  terms  are  as  useful  and  as  needful  in  the  ex- 
change of  thought  as  money  is  in  the  exchange  of  goods  or  value. 
And  their  ambiguities  and  their  self-contradictory  attributes  are 
sometimes  as  harmful  as  our  money  system  would  be  harmful  were 
a purported  dollar  worth  60  cents  in  “A’s”  hands,  70  cents  in  “B’s” 
hands,  on  one  day,  and  possibly  be  reversed  on  the  next  day. 


14 


May  2,  1918 

46.  Logic  teaches  the  principles  of  Classifying  things  or  no- 
tions indicated  by  terms;  grading  them  hierarchically  according 
to  their  correlative  relations  of  superordinacy  and  subordinacy  and 
sequentially  ranging  the  co-ordinate  species  of  each  genus  in 
those  instances  in  which  a certain  order  of  precedence  (or  se- 
quence) is  of  scientific  or  practical  or  mnemonic  utility. 

47.  Referring  to  the  thought  stated  in  paragraph  26  and  in 
extension  of  it,  it  may  be  useful  to  state  that  the  absence  of  certain 
necessary  ethical  middle  Terms  in  the  law  tends  to  cause  occa- 
sional disrespect  for  the  law  because  of  the  seeming  subterfuge  that 
has  to  be  formally  practiced  in  such  cases  in  order  to  preserve  the 
peace,  or  because  of  the  seeming  impotency  if  no  disciplinary  ac- 
tion is  taken.  The  logical  remedy  for  such  evils  is  probably  to 
amend  the  law  as  quickly  as  possible  so  as  to  enable  the  evil  to  be 
speedily  abated  with  dignity  and  equity  or  ethical  justice.  Such 
ethical  laws  then  tend  to  create  a certain  healthy  widespread  dis- 
countenancing public  sentiment  that  thereafter  the  emotion  of 
SHAME  is  likely  to  be  a sufficient  deterrent. 

48.  The  writer’s  apology  for  this  letter  is  the  extreme  im- 
portance to  the  Nation  of  a scientific  discussion  of  the  subject,  if 
the  stated  principles  are  reasonably  sound.  His  apology  for  its 
great  length  is  that  he  could  not  express  some  of  his  thoughts  with 
adequate  precision  without  using  terms  that  he  had  to  define  or 
whose  precise  use  he  had  to  illustrate  in  this  letter,  because  these 
terms  are  not  in  ordinary  use.  Sometimes  one  does  not  see  one  of 
them  in  the  course  of  a year’s  reading  of  newspapers ; whereas  the 
mental  processes,  well  or  ill  conducted,  which  those  little-used  terms 
represent,  are  going  on  in  every  person’s  mind  every  day. 

49.  A hundred  pages  could  easily  be  filled  with  extracts  from 
authors  of  logical  treatises  perspicuously  and  cogently  stating  rea- 
sons why  a study  and  knowledge  of  Logic  would  be  advantageous 
to  every  person  for  his  every  day  life  as  well  as  for  scientific  pur- 
suits in  the  mental  and  the  physical  world. 

Sincerely, 

JACOB  FRECH. 

As  has  been  done  with  all  prior  letters  on  this  subject,  copies  of 
this  letter  will  be  transmitted,  respectively,  to 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States. 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  District  Supreme  Court. 

The  Judge  of  the  Police  Court,  D.  C. 

The  United  States  Attorney,  D.  C.,  and 

The  Coroner, 

with  the  permission,  and  for  the  reasons,  stated  in  par.  15,  April 
3,  1916. 


15 


SUBJECT:  Homicidal  and  other  evil  influence — on  ill-informed 
or  unlogically  or  unethically  trained  conscientious  law-conform- 
ing drivers  and  other  persons  concerned  about  traffic  safety — 
of  certain  illogically  devised  aversive  pedestrian-designating 
terms;  and  the  ethical  propriety  of  scientifically  aiming  to 
discontinue  their  evil-causing  use. 


The  Honorable  Commissioners 

of  the  District  of  Columbia. 


Washington,  D.  C., 
January  10,  1920. 


Gentlemen : 

1.  Paragraph  19  of  the  letter  of  March  31,  1917 — on  the 
subject  of  the  ethical  but  not  yet  legal  right  of  a pedestrian  to 
dignified  (par.  15,  June  22,  1916)  and  safe  passage  on  a street 
crossing  and  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalk — reads  in  part  and 
in  effect  as  follows:  The  inadvertent  but  continued  official  and 
popular  use  of  a materially  inaccurate  classname,  averse  to  the 
pedestrian  class,  as  a name  for  the  cause  of  injury  or  death,  of 
pedestrians,  effected  by  conscientious  (par.  2,  June  22,  1916)  law- 
conforming  or  law-guided,  ill-informed  or  undisciplined  drivers — 
is  more  harmful  to  society  than  the  issuing  of  false  pieces  of  money 
or  of  false  checks  is  harmful  to  society.  The  bias  of  the  inaccurate 
name  is  uniformly  against  any  hope  of  possibility  of  protecting 
pedestrians  in  the  future  by  seeing  a need  for  adequately  amending 
the  regulations.  The  false  classname  creates  or  supports  a homi- 
cidal fallacy  that  the  pedestrians  are  the  cause  of  their  destruction. 
It  tends  in  each  instance  to  cause  another  like  lawful  injuring  or 
killing,  and  so  on  interminably.  If  the  medical  profession  were  to 
classname  causes  of  illness  and  death  from  preventible  diseases 
in  like  illogical  manner,  it  would  recede  hundred  of  years,  into  the 
Darker  Age,  in  effectiveness  in  discovering  and  controlling  certain 
causes  of  disease.  As  stated  in  par.  1,  May  2,  1918,  sometimes  an 
analogon  is  more  cogent  than  a direct  example. 

2.  (a)  The  following  quotation  is  an  extract  from  McCosh’s 
Treatise  on  Logic : “Bacon  directed  the  attention  of  modern 
thinkers  to  the  incidental  disadvantages  of  language.  Though  we 
think  we  govern  (all  of)  our  words,  yet  certain  it  is  that  (some) 
words,  as  a Tartar’s  bow,  do  shoot  back  upon  the  understanding 
and  do  mightily  entangle  and  pervert  the  judgment. 


1 


January  10,  1920 

(b)  Locke,  in  his  Essay,  says:  u Error  and  obscurity,  mistake 
and  confusion,  are  spread  in  the  world  by  the  ill  use  of  words; 
when  men’s  ideas  are  confused,  the  language  they  employ  will  also 
be  confused,  and  thus  increase  the  confusion.”  McCosh  says: 
“When  a science  is  properly  constructed  by  inductive  and  deductive 
means,  it  soon  finds  (makes)  an  appropriate  nomenclature.  Im- 
perfectly formed  sciences,  material  or  mental,  have  (some)  terms 
whose  influence  may  be  evil”  M.  Cousin  says:  “Assuredly  all 
science  ought  to  seek  a language  well  constructed.” 

(c)  Fowler,  in  his  Grammar,  says : “The  opinion  entertained 
of  an  object  influences  the  mind  in  the  application  of  the  term  to 
that  object,  and  the  term  when  applied  influences  the  opinion” 

(d)  Whitney,  in  his  Treatise  on  Language,  says : “Sometimes 
we  find  at  the  basis  of  a word  a mere  blunder,  as  when  we  talk  about 
lunatics,  as  if  we  still  believed  the  aberration  of  their  wits  to  depend 
upon  the  devious  motions  of  the  moon  (luna)  ; or  as  when  we  style 
our  aborigines,  Indians,  because  the  early  discoverers  of  this  Con- 
tinent set  their  faces  Westward  from  Europe  to  find  it;  or  as  when 
we  call  our  noted  American  feathered  biped,  a turkey,  in  servile 
imitation  of  that  ill-informed  generation  of  Englishmen,  which  not 
knowing  whence  he  came,  dubbed  him,  ‘the  Turkey  fowl’.” 

(e)  Sidgwick,  in  his  Use  of  Words  in  Reasoning,  says:  “A 
concealed  complexity  in  the  fact  appealed  to  as  evidence  is  the  root 
of  the  defect  technically  called  ambiguity  of  the  middle  term,  (par. 
21,  May  2,  1918) . It  is  in  our  habit  of  (erroneously)  viewing  facts 
which  admit  of  being  concisely  described  (concisely  named)  as 
simple  facts,  that  the  danger  chiefly  resides.  Our  natural  tendency, 
when  our  reflective  power  is  inexperienced  is  to  fall  under  the  domi- 
nation of  (certain)  words — a tendency  which  may  be  observed 
both  in  the  individual  and  in  the  human  race.  This  superstitious . 
attitude  towards  language  shows  itself  in  many  forms;  one  of 
these  forms  is  the  inclination  not  to  suspect  a Middle  Term  of 
ambiguity.  The  particular  CASE,  S,  is  seen  as  M,”  (par.  16,  May 
2,  1918),  “and  if  we  accept  as  true  the  statement  that  all  M is  P, 
we  consider  it  proved  that  S is  P.  If  we  can  connect  two  premises 
by  a Middle  Term  which,  being  a single  word  or  a concise  expres- 
sion, looks  simple,  our  easy  going,  childish  ( natural , untrained ) 
logic  is  satisfied.  We  do  not,  at  first,  look  behind  words  at  the 
precise  details  they  are  meant  to  cover,  and  so  we  tend  to  overlook 
differences  in  meaning  between  the  Middle  Term  as  used  in  the 
two  premises  respectively.  The  concealment  of  real  complexity 
under  verbal  simplicity  is  one  of  the  most  ubiquitous  and  familiar 
facts  of  language.”  (Par.  22,  May  2,  1918.) 


2 


January  10,  1920 

(f)  Take  the  concise,  misleading  term,  “stepped  before”  or 
“stepped  in  front  of”  an  auto  or  a car.  A conscientious  driver, 
police  officer,  coroner’s  jury,  or  newspaper  (thus  by  a figure  of 
personification,  giving  a newspaper  a conscience)  is  likely  to  use 
that  term  in  the  case  of  any  pedestrian,  man,  woman,  or  child,  who 
is  unintentionally  but  murderously  avoidably  injured  or  killed  by  a 
driver  who  saw,  or  ought,  from  ethical  or  altruistic  or  courteous 
motives,  to  have  seen,  that  person  approaching  his  path,  before  he 
was  150,  or  120,  or  90,  or  60,  or  30  feet  from  the  point  where  he 
must  inevitably  do  that  injuring  or  killing,  if  the  pedestrian  does 
not  hear,  or  does  not  expertly  or  ingeniously  or  luckily  interpret 
his  legal-right-of  way,  fear-inspiring,  paralyzing  blast.  The  driver 
knows,  or  can  know,  that  there  is  no  law  explicitly  requiring  him 
to  timely  slack  speed  or  timely  take  some  other  adequate  safety 
step  in  such  an  extremely  dangerous  case,  and  he  knows  that  there 
is  no  law  that  explicitly  gives  a pedestrian  right  of  way  on  a street 
crossing  or  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalk.  This  means,  and 
the  driver  so  understands,  or  can  understand,  or  learns,  or  can 
learn,  by  natural,  almost  unconscious  induction,  in  the  reading  of 
decided  cases,  that  the  law  does  not  give  a pedestrian,  man,  woman, 
or  child,  a legal  right  to  dignified  and  safe  passage  on  a street 
crossing  or  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalk,  in  the  legal  path  of 
any  driver  who  does  not  violate  the  speed  law,  the  temperance  law, 
or  the  license  law;  although  the  maximum  legal  speed  in  such  a 
dangerous  case,  is  a homicidal  or  outlawing  or  MURDEROUS  legal 
speed.  ETHICS  would  give  the  pedestrian  dignified  and  safe  pas- 
sage on  a street  crossing  or  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalk ; its 
ground  for  doing  so  is,  he  is  a human  being.  As  already  stated, 
Ethics  is  the  GOAL  of  LEGISLATION.  With  regard  to  pedes- 
trians, legislation  is  not  yet  in  sight  of  that  goal ; or  in  other  words 
legislation,  judging  from  the  Police  Regulations  cited  in  these 
letters,  does  not  probably  know  in  what  point  of  the  compass  its 
unconscious  ethical  goal  is  because  we  have  no  adequate  science  of 
Ethics  and  because  of  the  alluring  appearance  of  the  visible 
economic  goal. 

In  the  absence  of  a logical  Ethics  we  must  sometimes  do  like 
the  wideawake  landsman,  who,  relieving  the  captain  at  the  wheel, 
for  a few  hours’  sleep,  and  who,  being  directed  to  steer  continually 
for  the  North  Star,  did  so,  until  he  found  that  the  vessel  had  some- 
how passed  the  North  Star  and  consequently  the  awakening  captain 
found  him  steering  for  Mars,  and  the  vessel  near  the  breakers. 

(g)  The  accessory  ideas  in  this  unsympathetic  illogically  used 
term,  “stepped  before”  or  “stepped  in  front  of”  an  auto  or  a car, 


January  10,  1920 

excuse  and  legalize  the  self-centered,  recklessly  inhumane  injuring 
or  killing  of  a human  being,  whom  it  at  the  same  time  selfishly 
slanders.  In  the  present  relevantly  ill-informed  state  of  society,  the 
illogical  use  of  such  driver-excusing  and  law-excusing  and  victim- 
slandering  terms  tends  to  keep  the  public  conscience  somewhat 
placid  and  unruffled. 

For  a discussion  of  like  illogically  used  terms,  viz : 

Careless  pedestrian, 

Negligent  pedestrian, 

Imprudent  pedestrian, 

'Newspaper-reading  pedestrian, 

Dangerous  or  defiant  pedestrian, 

please  see  par.  7-a  and  the  paragraphs  of  other  letters  of  this  dis- 
cussion therein  explicitly  referred  to. 

3.  Ordinarily  we  can  not  realize  that  a very  great  majority 
of  a very  large  class  of  educated  conscientious  persons  may 
naturally  hold,  in  common,  a false  opinion  (belief,  sentiment) 
necessarily  very  injurious  to  society,  for  which  opinion  there  is  no 
sufficient  evidence,  no  proof,  no  VALID  PREMISES,  no  LOGICAL 
ground,  nothing  but  DOGMA,  or  natural  prejudice,  or  natural  pre- 
possession. Such  false  opinion  may  be  so  deeply  ingrained  and  so 
tenacious — because  of  its  venerable  age,  and  its  dogmatic  authority 
or  seeming  unquestioned  universality  and  seeming  clearness  to  the 
physical  or  mental  eye — that  only  an  intellectual  or  psychological 
constructive  evolution  can,  in  the  present  state  of  non-logical  train- 
ing, adequately  convince  the  possessors  (of  such  illogical  opinion), 
of  the  evil  or  homicidal  consequence  of  that  opinion;  and  conse- 
quently only  by  a very  slow  or  almost  imperceptible  degree  of 
progress — a mode  in  which  Nature  sometimes  acts  in  her  Provi- 
dential Constructive  Stages ; such  as  the  developmental  change  in  a 
locust  of  a certain  species,  or  probably  in  a century  plant. 

4.  (a)  Take,  for  instance,  the  case  of  the  mistaken  opinion 
that,  during  any  one  revolution  of  a wheel,  on  an  auto  moving  at 
a uniform  rate,  a point  on  its  tire,  (1)  moves  likewise  at  a uniform 
rate,  (per.  4,  May  2,  1918)  ; or  (2)  moves  in  successive  circles ; 

(b)  It  is  probable  that  900,000  out  of  a million  of  educated 
drivers  (or  owners)  will  upon  being  questioned,  be  found  to  hold 
one  or  both  of  those  mistaken  opinions ; and  that  they  will  support 
their  opinion  by  the  natural  but  invalid  premise  that  they  can  see 
plainly  and  clearly  that  a conspicuously  colored  spot  (point)  on  the 
rim  of  a fast  moving  auto  moves  at  (1)  a uniform  speed  and  (2) 
makes  circles,  or  goes  around  and  around,  and  that  to  hold  other- 
wise is  to  discredit  the  sense  of  unobstructed  clear  sight,  and  is  an 
absurdity. 


4 


January  10,  1920 

(c)  Every  one  of  the  900,000  educated  drivers,  or  owners, 
very  likely  rests  under  the  belief  that  when  his  eyes  tell  him  that 
the  point  moves  at  a uniform  speed  or  generates  circles  then  it  must 
be  true  that  the  point  does  so.  Whereas  the  major  premises  filed 
in  the  record  body  of  SCIENCE  tell  us  that  the  conspicuously 
colored  spot  makes  a series  of  common  cycloids,  assimilating  a 
series  of  semi-circles  or  LEAPS,  and  that  the  rate  of  speed  of  the 
spot  is  never  the  same  for  any  two  successive  instants  of  time;  and 
that  when  an  auto  is  going  30  miles  per  hour,  the  point  when  at  the 
exact  top  goes  60  miles  per  hour,  and  when  very  near  the  bottom 
goes  less  than  30  inches  per  hour. 

(d)  This  class  of  mistaken  opinion  may  do  no  harm  to  society, 
assuming  a theory  that  a widespread  knowledge  of  that  FACT 
would  not  have  a tendency  to  cause  such  general  exercise  of  care- 
fulness that  it  would  largely  tend  to  decrease  the  occurrence  of 
skidding,  with  its  frequently  resulting  frights,  injuries  and  deaths. 

(e)  One  of  the  daily  papers  of  Sunday,  December  21,  1919, 
tells  us  that  a boy  on  a sled  delivering  groceries,  being  at  rest  at  the 
curb,  was  crushed  to  death,  in  this  city,  by  a skidding  auto.  That 
boy  had  an  ethical  right  to  live  a useful  life  many  years,  and  the 
driver  and  the  families  of  the  boy  and  driver  had  an  ethical  right 
to  have  a joyous  holiday  season.  The  defective  rhetoric  of  our  law 
based  on  economic  theories  engender  and  encourage  driver-prac- 
tices that  have  in  this  instance  decreed  otherwise. 

5.  But,  it  is  FACT  that  as  many  as  900,000  or  more  out  of  a 
million  conscientious  educated  persons,  can  hold  a homicidal  mis- 
taken opinion  created  by  or  weaved  into  an  illogically  used  term; 
a false  or  illogical  opinion  that,  by  reason  of  the  nigh  universal  non- 
cognizance of  its  illogicality  necessarily  and  nondisapprovingly 
destroys,  in  public  view,  during  a long  period  of  relevant  particular 
NESCIENCE  the  lives  of  millions  of  innocent,  falsely-judged, 
human  beings. 

6.  (a)  Take,  for  instance,  as  an  analogon,  the  case  of  the 
erroneous  opinion  that  there  did  at  one  time  (or  that  there  does 
now)  exist  a species  of  persons  who  made  (or  who  make)  individ- 
ual covenant  with  a supposed  supernatural  being,  popularly  desig- 
nated, an  evil  spirit  or  a devil;  and  consequently  each  individual 
of  that  species  was  (or  is)  aversively  classed  as  a WITCH.  Science 
has  not  yet  found  sufficient  ground  for  such  opinion.  But  such 
opinion  did  exist  persistently  and  homicidally  for  many  years  in 
the  minds  of  the  best  educated  conscientious  persons,  in  high 
positions  in  many  national  governments,  as  is  evidenced  by  the 


January  10,  1920 

following  extract  from  the  Encyclopedia  Brittanica : “The  authori- 
zation of  belief  in  Witchcraft  was  based  partly  on  the  Mosaic  Law 
— especially  Exodus  XXII.  18  (Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a witch  to 
live)  ; partly  in  a peculiar  construction  of  other  parts  of  Scripture, 
such  as  1 Cor.  XI.  10;  where  the  words  “because  of  the  angels” 
were  supposed  to  prove  the  reality,  of  the  class  of  demons  called 
incubi.  Witnesses  incompetent  in  ordinary  cases  were  on  account 
of  the  gravity  of  the  offense  admissible  on  a charge  of  witchcraft 
against  but  not  for  the  accused.  An  alleged  witch  was  to  be  con- 
jured, by  the  tears  of  our  Saviour  and  of  our  Lady  and  the  Saints, 
to  weep,  which  she  could  not  do  if  she  were  guilty.  The  authors 
explain  that  witchcraft  is  more  natural  to  women  than  to  men  on 
account  of  the  inherent  wickedness  of  their  hearts.  * * * The 

most  interesting  trial  is  that  of  the  Suffolk  witches,  because  Sir 
Matthew  Hale  was  the  judge  and  Sir  Thomas  Browne  was  the 
medical  expert  witness.  Sir  Thomas  Browne  testified  that  the 
swooning  fits  of  the  victims  of  alleged  witches  were  natural, 
heightened  to  great  excess  by  the  subtlety  of  the  devil  cooperating 
with  the  witches.  The  Chief  Baron,  in  his  summing  up,  said,  that 
there  were  such  creatures  as  witches  was  undoubted,  for  the  Scrip- 
tures affirmed  it.  In  many  of  these  trials  the  accused  confessed 
before  execution.  Torture,  as  the  Milan  case  shows,  might  force 
from  the  accused  confession  of  an  impossible  crime. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  17th  century  the  feeling  towards  witch- 
craft began  to  change.  This  change  of  feeling  was  no  doubt  caused 
to  a great  extent  by  the  works  of  writers,  few  in  number  but  strong 
in  argument.  Legal  writers  did  little  to  shake  the  prevailing 
opinion.  Coke,  Bacon,  and  Hale  certainly  admitted  the  possibility 
of  witchcraft.  Luther  and  other  eminent  writers  no  doubt  had  full 
faith  in  the  existence  of  witchcraft. 

(b)  In  the  abstract  of  the  Laws  of  New  England  printed  in 
1655  appears  this  article:  III.  Witchcraft,  which  is  fellowship  by 
covenant  with  a familiar  spirit,  to  be  punished  with  death.  In  the 
15th  century,  Joan  of  Arc  was  condemned  on  a charge  of  witch- 
craft.” 

(c)  The  following  extract  from  an  article  on  Joan  of  Arc,  in 
the  Encyclopedia,  illustrates  with  what  certainty  and  persistence, 
illogically,  but  highly,  educated  minds  can  unsuspectingly  and  un- 
questionably foster  a delusion:  “What  she  chiefly  supplied  to  the 
French  cause,  was  concentrated  energy  and  resolution.  Above  all 
she  inspired  the  soldiery  with  a fanatic  enthusiasm  armed  with  the 
sanctions  and  ennobled  by  the  influence  of  religion;  and  she  over- 
awed the  enemy  by  the  superstitious  fear  that  she  was  in  league 


6 


January  10,  1920 

with  supernatural  powers.  * * * By  means  of  negotiations 

instigated  and  prosecuted  with  great  perseverance  by  the  Univer- 
sity of  Paris  and  the  Inquisition,  she  was  sold  to  the  English,  who, 
at  the  instance  of  the  University  of  Paris,  delivered  her  over  to  the 
Inquisition  for  trial.  She  was  burned  at  the  stake  in  the  streets 
of  Rouen,  May  30,  1431,  as  a heretic  and  sorcerer.  The  greatness 
of  her  career  consists  in  her  pure,  true  and  ardent  character,  which 
made  her  a pathetic  victim  to  the  cruelties  of  a superstitious  age.” 

(d)  The  entertainment  of  that  false  opinion  by  that  highly 
educated  class  of  persons  caused  the  death  in  public  view,  of  many 
persons,  on  a legal  charge,  legal  trial  and  legal  conviction,  of  a 
species  of  alleged  act  of  which  Science  has  not  found  any  evidence, 
in  the  past  or  present,  and  does  not  expect  to  find  any  in  the  future. 

7.  (a)  While  that  lamentable  destruction  of  human  life  was 
going  on  in  every  Christian  country,  as  now  goes  on  the  destruction 
of  pedestrian-lives,  because  of  a nigh  universal  false  belief,  the 
ill-informed,  ill-trained,  conscientious  public  looked  on  as  placidly 
and  nondisapprovingly,  as  nearly  all  of  us  do  NOW  on  the  wound- 
ing and  killing  of  pedestrians  classed  by  various  Coroner’s  juries, 
many  newspapers,  and  other  makers  of  public  opinion,  as  species  of 
Careless  pedestrian  (par.  1 to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916) 

Negligent  pedestrian  (par.  1 to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916) 
Imprudent  pedestrian  (par.  17  and  18,  Mch.  31,  1917) 
Jaywalking  pedestrian  (par.  2 to  19,  Dec.  6,  1916) 
Newspaper-reading  pedestrian  (par.  33,  May  2,  1918) 
Dangerous  or  defiant  pedestrian  (par.  13,  Jan.  5,  1917) 
that  is,  they  constitute  a genus  of 
Illdeserving  persons,  or 
Reprehensible  persons 

by  reason  of  the  aversive  accessory  ideas  in  these  terms. 

(b)  The  popular  nigh  universal  use  of  these  aversive  illogically 
or  unscientifically  applied  terms  tends  to  cause  many  unreflecting 
persons  to  feel  that  the  autoists  and  the  street  car  managers — 
when  doing  or  causing  their  injuring  and  killing  while  conscien- 
tiously complying  with  the  rhetorically  defective  law — are  legally 
(or  not  unlawfully)  doing  necessary  economic  or  police  service  to 
society  by  disciplining  or  teaching  very  many  persons  of  that 
factitiously  reprehensible  class,  (misconceived  to  be  reprehensible, 
by  fallacious  prejudice  aided  by  unconscious  rhetorical  artifices) 
by  giving  them  a needed  physical  lesson  over  which  they  can 
ponder  in  a hospital,  and  by  putting  many  of  them  where  they 
can  never  again  obstruct  traffic,  or  cause  scientific  investigation 
to  be  made  of  scant-time  schedules  or  their  homicidal  mode  of 
enforcement.  (Par.  50-h,  June  5,  1917.) 

7 


January  10,  1920 

8.  Some  day,  possibly,  in  a future  generation,  when  logic — the 
science  of  frank,  honest,  sincere  thinking  — shall  be  adequately 
taught  in  the  public  schools  and  applied  to  the  realm  of  Ethics, 
constituting  it  a science  necessarily  limited  to  conduct  between 
human  beings,  and  towards  the  lower  animals,  and  serving  as  an 
acknowledged  goal  to  legislation,  our  then  better  informed  and 
trained  makers  of  public  opinion  may  begin  to  see  that  the  persons 
who  are  being  legally  wounded  and  killed  by  drivers  are  nearly  all 
species  of 

Immature  (par.  11  to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916) 

Aged  (par.  17,  Mch.  31,  1917) 

Inexperienced  (par.  11  to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916) 

Timid  (par.  11  to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916) 

Eyedefective  (par.  21,  Jan.  5,  1917) 

Eardefective  (par.  3 to  30,  Mch.  31,  1917) 

Infirm  (par.  10-c,  this  letter) , or 
Invalid  persons; 

that  is,  they  constitute  a genus  of 
Unfortunate  persons;  or 
Outlawed  persons;  or 
Doubly  handicapped  persons, 

unable  to  successfully  cope  against  homicidal  conditions  that  the 
defective  rhetoric  of  the  law  permits  or  creates. 

9.  A number  of  cases  tending  to  support  this  theory  have  been 
analyzed  in  the  following  designated  paragraphs,  namely: 

I of  Sept.  11,  1915; 

7 of  Nov.  30,  1915; 

13  of  June  22,  1916; 

6 of  Oct.  16,  1916; 

II  to  13  of  Nov.  25,  1916; 

2-b  and  12,  18  and  21  of 

Jan.  5,  1917 ; 

17  to  19  of  Mch.  31,  1917; 

10,  16  and  37  of  June  5,  1917 
(case  of  President  and 
Mrs.  Wilson). 

10.  Christmas  Day  of  1919,  furnished  us  the  following  re- 
ported cases : 

(a)  A 12  year  girl  seriously  injured  by  a car  was  brought  to 
Emergency  Hospital ; she  may  die. 

(b)  A 17  year  boy  struck  by  a motorcycle;  brought  to  Cas- 
ualty Hospital. 


8 


January  10,  1920 

(c)  A crippled  soldier -patient  knocked  down  and  seriously  in- 
jured by  express  truck,  was  brought  to  Emergency  Hospital. 

11.  It  will  probably  be  conceded  that  a traffic  safety-law  should 
be  couched  in  frank,  honest,  sincere,  and  explicit  or  specific 
language. 

(a)  Such  a law  would,  for  the  instruction  of  drivers  with 
regard  to  human  life,  have  a major  premise  explicitly  speaking 
of  one  or  more  of  the  species  of  pedestrians  named  in  paragraph  8 ; 
or  would  be  so  worded  as  to  show  clearly  that  it  has  one  or  more 
of  that  species  in  contemplation.  Our  law  does  not  do  that. 

(b)  It  would  have  one  or  more  major  premises  coupling  the 
term  right  of  way  with  the  term  pedestrian.  Our  law  has  no  such 
major  premise. 

(c)  It  would  have  one  or  more  major  premises  coupling  the 
term  timely  slowing  down  or  timely  slacking  speed  when  danger- 
ously approaching  a pedestrian’s  path,  with  the  term  vehicle  or 
street  car.  Our  law  has  no  such  major  premise. 

12.  The  large  number  of  persons  legally  killed  as  witches  is 
not  stated  in  the  British  Encyclopedia. 

Following  is  an  extract  from  Legal  and  Political  Hermeneutics 
by  Francis  Lieber  in  which  he  quotes  from  Revelations  of  God  by 
Henry  Stephani : “It  has  been  computed  that  on  the  whole  NINE 
MILLION  FIVE  HUNDRED  THOUSAND  beings  were  sacrificed 
as  witches  or  wizards  in  Christian  countries,  not  to  mention  the 
COUNTLESS  victims  of  the  most  barbarous  torments.”  This 
number  is  a little  larger  than  the  recently  estimated  number  of 
men,  of  all  the  contending  nations,  killed  in  the  World  War. 

13.  It  is  possible  that  the  logical  investigation  and  discovery 
by  Copernicus  (1473-1545)  contradicting  beliefs  regarding  the 
physical  relations  of  the  sun,  the  earth,  and  the  moon,  and  the 
adoption  or  confirmation  of  that  discovery  by  Bruno  (1548-1600) 
and  Galileo  (1564-1642)  had  a tendency  to  expedite  the  change 
in  the  feeling  towards  the  belief  in  Witchcraft.  Copernicus  died 
on  the  day  on  which  his  book  was  delivered  to  him  from  the  pub- 
lisher ; Bruno  was  burnt  at  the  stake ; he  was  an  author  of  several 
treatises  on  Logic;  Galileo  retracted  his  expressed  opinion  under 
menace  of  torture.  “On  the  Continent  and  in  England  there  was 
during  two  centuries  a steady  flow  of  literary  attacks  on  the  rea- 
sonableness of  the  belief  in  witchcraft”  (Enc.  Brit.).  These  facts 
illustrate  the  pertinacity  of  some  classes  of  errors  and  the  diffi- 
culty and  the  slowness  of  the  progress  of  some  classes  of  Truth, 


9 


January  10,  1920 

and  the  discouragements  encountered  by  explorers  in  search  of 
some  classes  of  Truths  to  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  mankind. 

14.  A popular  saying  reads : “Truth  crushed  to  earth  will  rise 
again.”  Logic,  or  frankness,  honesty  and  sincerity,  requires  that 
that  saying  be  modified  about  as  follows:  Some  truths  crushed  to 
earth  will  rise  again;  Some  ethical  truths  crushed  into  the  earth 
are  paved  over  by  the  selfishness  of  economic  systems,  or  of  other 
firmly  established  systems,  and  share  the  fate  of  an  acorn  under  a 
concrete  roadway. 

15.  The  writer  has  discovered  one  error  in  this  series  of  letters. 
This  error  is  due  to  that  universal  cause  of  error  known  as  natural 
prejudice  or  prepossession  or  self-delusion.  That  class  of  error 
is  caused  by  not  critically  examining,  or  by  not  examining  again 
the  premises  of  a conclusion,  because  of  an  unquestioned  feeling 
that  the  accepted  conclusion  was  validly  syllogized,  in  the  mind, 
long,  long  ago,  and  hence  not  now  open  to  doubt.  It  is  a truism, 
that  we  do  not  doubt  a proposition  that  we  do  not  doubt. 

16.  The  statement  in  par.  15,  May  2,  1918,  implying  that  the 
cycloid  was  discovered  probably  more  than  2,000  years  ago  is 
erroneous.  Since  that  letter  was  written  the  writer  has  accident- 
ally learned  that  the  cycloid  was  discovered  by  Galileo , in  1616. 

17.  It  is  said  to  be  one  of  the  most  wonderful  curves  ever  dis- 
covered. It  throws  much  light  on  the  question  of  the  speed  of 
gravitating  bodies,  a subject  he  was  then  investigating.  Science 
tells  us  that  of  two  bodies  whose  sliding  is  conditioned  solely  by 
the  same  frictionless  surface,  say  of  a huge  bowl,  conforming  to 
an  inverted  cycloidal  curve,  if  both  are  released  at  the  same  in- 
stant, both  will  simultaneously  reach  the  same  point  at  the  bottom, 
regardless  of  any  difference  in  altitude  of  the  two  objects  at  the 
instant  of  release.  Assume  a huge  smooth  bowl  whose  inner  sur- 
face is  so  shaped  as  to  conform  to  a cycloidal  curve  generated  by 
a circle,  say,  555  feet  (height  of  Washington  Monument)  in  diame- 
ter. One  body  released  555  feet  above  the  earth,  (1110  feet  sliding 
distance  from  the  bottom  point;  the  other  body  simultaneously 
released,  say  111  feet  above  the  earth;  both  will  reach  the  bottom 
point  simultaneously. 

18.  The  probably  extreme  importance  to  the  physical,  intel- 
lectual and  ethical  advancement  of  this  Nation  that  might  neces- 
sarily result  from  a scientific  discussion  of  the  question  of  the 
ethical  but  not  yet  legal  right  of  a pedestrian  (say  a mother,  par. 
7,  June  5,  1917),  to  dignified  (par.  15,  June  22,  1916)  and  safe 
passage  on  a street  crossing  or  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalk, 


10 


January  10,  1920 

is  the  apology  of  the  writer  for  this  unavoidably  long  contribution 
to  such  discussion.  It  being  possible  that  as  a logical  consequence  of 
the  instituting,  when  popular  opinion  will  permit,  a Governmental 
Department  of  Science  (pars.  23  and  34,  May  2,  1918)  fhere  would 
result  Governmental  initiative  and  encouragement  of  the  study  by 
our  public-school  teachers  and  scholars,  and  consequently  by  most 
of  our  people  and  by  the  teachers  and  scholars  in  the  higher  educa- 
tional institutions,  of  the  science  and  the  art  of  frank,  honest, 
sincere,  humanely  purposive,  or  telic,  thinking  (par.  41,  May  2, 
1918). 

19.  Frank,  honest  and  sincere  thinking  is  a prerequisite  to 
frank,  honest,  and  sincere  stating. 

Frank,  honest  and  sincere  stating,  (veracious  stating)  to  every 
person  or  group  of  persons,  that  is  ethically  entitled  to  a veracious 
statement — where  courtesy  or  modesty,  or  consideration  for  the 
welfare  of  the  addressee  (an  invalid,  for  instance)  does  not  enjoin 
silence  or  kindly  disposed  deception — is  probably  a prerequisite  to 
the  earning  of  the  CONFIDENCE,  Trust  or  Sympathetic  feeling 
of  that  person,  or  group  of  persons; — and  is  consequently,  prob- 
ably a prerequisite  to  the  establishing  and  preserving  UNIVERSAL 
ethical  or  social  HARMONY  (par.  40,  May  2,  1918). 

Such  a result  would  tend  to  the  discovery  of  a major  premise 
to  insert  in  the  Police  Regulations  that  would  tend  to  insure  to 
pedestrians,  to  human  beings,  the  legal  right  to  dignified  and  safe 
passage  on  a street  crossing  and  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalk. 

20.  When  once  the  scientific  and  ethical  attitude  of  mind  is 
formed  in  any  group,  it  is  probable  that  it  would  be  considered  by 
the  majority  of  that  group,  to  be  as  unscientific,  as  unethical,  as 
DISHONORABLE,  for  any  two  or  more  persons,  to  engage  in  dis- 
courteous or  vindictive  intellectual  or  physical  combat,  as  it  is  now 
considered  to  be  educative,  entertaining  and  HONORABLE  to  en- 
gage in  scientific,  courteous  or  playful  intellectual  or  physical  con- 
tests. 

Sincerely, 

JACOB  FRECH. 

As  has  been  done  with  all  prior  letters  on  this  subject,  copies 
of  this  letter  will  be  transmitted,  respectively,  to 
The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States, 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  District  Supreme  Court, 

The  United  States  Attorney,  D.  C., 

The  Judge  of  the  Police  Court,  Di.  C.,  and 
The  Coroner, 

with  the  permission,  and  for  the  reasons,  stated  in  par.  15,  April  3, 

1916. 


11 


SUBJECT:  Probable  dependence  of  legalizing  pedestrian  ethical 
rights  on  the  popularizing  of  the  teaching  of  logic  (science, 
truth) . 


Washington,  D.  C., 
September  10,  1920. 


The  Honorable  Commissioners 

of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

1.  Paragraphs  16  to  19,  letter  of  November  30,  1915,  and  2 
to  8,  June  22,  1916,  read,  in  effect,  as  follows: 

(Par.  16,  Nov.  30,  1915.)  With  regard  to  the  question  of  the 
class  of  pedestrians  whom  popular  but  erroneous  opinion  classes 
as  careless,  it  is  useful  to  state  that  of  the  three  pedestrians,  each 
over  60  years  of  age,  living  in  three  of  four  adjoining  residences 
mentioned  in  the  letter  of  Sept.  11,  191 5,”  (the  first  of  this  series 
of  fourteen  letters)  “who  were  run  over  by  autos,  one  was  for  a 
long  time  Chief  Clerk  of  an  executive  department  of  the  United 
States ; the  second  was  for  a long  time  the  Chief  Clerk  of  a bureau 
of  one  of  those  departments ; the  third  is  a private  citizen  of  equal 
ability.  It  is  evidently  a mistake  to  designate  this  class  of  pedes- 
trians as  careless  pedestrians  (par.  7,  Jan.  10,  1920).  Our  auto- 
drivers are  generally  conscientious,  kind-hearted  persons,  but  like 
most  persons  they  feel  a zest  in  taking  chances;  that  is,  to  take  a 
chance  that  a pedestrian  in  their  path  or  unwittingly  walking  into 
their  path  will  get  out  of  their  way  in  ample  time.  In  doing  this 
the  auto-driver  is  taking  what  is  called  a sporting  chance,  or  a 
gambling  chance ; the  stake  unfortunately  for  the  pedestrian  being 
the  pedestrian’s  life  (not  the  auto-driver’s  life).  The  auto-driver 
subconsciously  bets  with  himself  that  the  pedestrian  will  get  out  of 
his  way  in  ample  time.  He  generally  wins  his  bet;  sometimes  by 
only  a narrow  margin.  If,  however,  he  loses,  he  feels  that  he  will 
be  excused  (by  the  judiciary  and  consequently  by  the  public)  ; be- 
cause he  thinks  that  all  others  under  the  same  circumstances  have 
probably  been  excused.  Fortunately,  the  gambling  instinct  is 
inhibitible  or  controllable  within  reasonable  limits  by  adequate  in- 
struction. 


1 


September  10,  1920 

(Par.  17,  Nov.  30,  1915)  The  suggested  changes  (par.  11  and 
17,  Sept.  11,  1915;  3,  Oct.  18,  1916;  4,  March  31,  1917,  and  11,  Jan. 
10,  1920)  in  the  wording  (or  rhetoric)  of  the  regulations  probably 
contain  the  needed  instruction  and  would  give  the  auto-driver  a 
different  and  better  understanding  of  the  desires  or  orders  of  the 
Commissioners ; and  the  courts  would  necessarily  put  a correspond- 
ingly different  interpretation  on  them. 

(Par.  18,  Nov.  30,  1915)  Herein,  therefore,  is  probably  the 
remedy;  the  putting  a different  and  better  understanding  in  the 
auto-driver  by  a careful  adequate  change  in  the  wording  of  the 
regulations. 

(Par.  19,  Nov.  30,  1915)  More  than  two  hundred  years  ago, 
a philosopher  (John  Locke)  expressed  the  following  principle: 
“The  last  resort  a man  has  recourse  to  in  the  conduct  of  himself,  is 
his  understanding ; for  though  we  distinguish  the  faculties  of  the 
mind,  and  give  the  supreme  command  to  the  will,  as  to  an  agent, 
yet  the  truth  is,  the  man  who  is  the  agent  determines  himself  to 
this  or  that  voluntary  action,  upon  some  precedent  knowledge , or 
appearance  of  knowledge,  in  the  understanding.  No  man  ever  sets 
himself  about  anything  but  upon  some  view  or  other  which  serves 
him  for  a reason  for  what  he  does ; and  whatsoever  faculties  he  em- 
ploys, the  understanding,  with  such  light  as  it  has,  well  or  ill  in- 
formed, constantly  leads;  and  by  that  light,  true  or  false,  all  his 
operative  powers  are  directed.  The  will  itself,  how  absolute  and 
uncontrollable  soever  it  may  be  thought,  never  fails  in  its  obedience 
to  the  dictates  of  the  understanding.” 

(Par.  2,  June  22,  1916)  There  are  many  words  in  the  English 
language,  as  in  probably  all  other  languages,  that  tend  at  times, 
however  carefully  used,  to  mislead  even  reflecting  persons  who  mis- 
takenly think  they  fully  know  their  import  and  meanings.  The 
word  “conscience”  or  “conscientious”  is  of  this  class.  When  we 
hear  that  a conscientious,  kind-hearted  auto-driver— who  gave 
early  signal  and  did  not  exceed  legal  speed  limits — has  killed,  dis- 
abled or  injuriously  frightened  a pedestrian,  we  are  likely  to  feel 
that  the  auto-driver  tried,  by  reasonable  or  proper  or  approvable 
steps,  to  avoid  the  calamity  or  evil,  or,  the  same  thing,  that  he  did 
whatever  was  easily  in  his  power  to  do,  to  avoid  the  calamity  or  evil. 
Or,  in  other  words,  we  are  likely  to  feel  that  (1)  conscientiousness 
of  an  auto-driver  and  (2)  recklessly  jeopardizing  by  an  auto-driver 
the  dignity  and  safety  of  a lawful  pedestrian  are  incompatible 
notions  and  terms. 


2 


September  10,  1920 

(Par.  3,  June  22,  1916)  Careful  analysis  may  prove  this  con- 
clusion to  be  a fatal  and  death-causing  fallacy. 

(Par.  4,  June  22,  1916)  Conscience  may,  from  one  point  of 
view,  be  likened  to  a time-piece;  a watch.  The  conduct  of  a con- 
scientious person  that  he  thinks  is  likely  to  result  in  the  weal  or  woe 
of  another  person,  is  governed  by  his  conscience ; or,  the  same  thing, 
is  governed  by  the  relevant  major  premises  that  he  has  imbibed; 
practically  in  the  same  manner  as  the  keeping  of  appointments  by 
a punctually  inclined  man  is  governed  by  his  watch.  Now  one  per- 
son’s conscience  with  regard  to  a certain  line  of  conduct  may  dis- 
agree with  any  other  person’s  conscience  like  their  watches  may 
disagree.  In  fact  this  psychological  principle  is  crystallized  in  the 
expression  that  we  sometimes  hear,  viz : that  a person’s  conscience 
regarding  a certain  question  may  be  set  at  the  wrong  hour. 

(Par.  5,  June  22,  1916)  Every  watch  is  fallible  and  occasion- 
ally needs  adequate  comparing  and  setting  in  accord  with  a stand- 
ard. The  statement  of  this  truth  implies  that  for  a watch  there  ex- 
ists a publicly  or  universally  recognized  standard  with  which  it  is 
proper  to  set  it  in  accord.  As  this  standard  is  adopted  or  approved 
by  the  legislative  department  and  accepted  by  the  executive  and 
judicial  departments — when  any  relevant  legal  question  arises  all 
three  departments  are  likely  to  act  in  unison;  i.  e.,  the  judicial  de- 
partment will  agree  with  and  support  the  executive  department  in 
its  aims,  there  being  practically  no  cause  for  a difference  between 
them  in  the  interpretation  of  the  standard.  In  this  respect  the 
judicial  department  may  be  said  to  fully  co-operate  with  the  execu- 
tive department. 

(Par.  6,  June  22, 1916)  Like  with  watches,  any  individual  con- 
science is  fallible,  and  consequently,  with  regard  to  some  vital  pub- 
lic interest  may  be  materially  erroneous  and  hence  stand  in  need  of 
adequate  comparing  and  setting  with  a standard  relevant  major 
premise;  a standard  major  premise  may  be  either  an  author ative 
statement  of  a principle  or  of  a precept.  If  a major  premise  is 
framed  in  the  imperative  mood  it  is  properly  termed  a precept;  if 
framed  in  the  declarative  mood  it  is  properly  termed  a principle. 

(Par.  7,  June  22,  1916)  In  the  last  or  final  analysis,  it  will 
probably  be  found  to  be  true  that  every  deliberated  act,  although 
the  deliberation  may  be  instantaneous,  is  based  on  (or  determined 
in  accordance  with)  a relevant  major  premise.  This  term  (major 
premise)  is  probably  a precise  or  unambiguous  generic  name  for 


3 


September  10,  1920 

all  conduct  (or  action)  guides.  Locke  uses  the  less  precise  words 
view,  reason  and  light  to  stand  for  practically  the  same  notion.  As 
stated  in  par.  19  of  the  letter  of  Nov.  30,  1915,  Locke  holds  that 
“No  man  ever  sets  himself  about  anything  but  upon  some  view  or 
other  which  serves  him  for  a reason  for  what  he  does,  and  whatso- 
ever faculties  he  employs,  the  understanding  with  such  light  as  it 
has,  well  or  ill  informed , constantly  leads;  and  by  that  light,  true 
or  false,  all  his  operative  powers  are  directed.” 

(Par.  8,  June  22,  1916)  Now  if  the  scientific  analysis  which 
has  been  essayed  in  the  three  preceding  letters  is  reasonably  sound, 
it  is  probable  that  the  rhetoric  (or  wording)  of  the  authoritative 
statement  of  the  major  premises  (or  relevant  clauses),  in  the 
Police  Regulations,  regarding  the  question  of  reasonable  obliga- 
tions of  the  auto-driver  and  the  reasonable  right  of  a lawful  pedes- 
trian to  his  life  and  to  freedom  from  bodily  injury  or  injurious 
mental  shock  from  an  auto,  is  of  such  a nature  as  to  cause  about 
five  per  cent  of  the  conscientious  auto-drivers  to  imbibe  and  to  be 
governed  conscientiously  by  fatally  erroneous  major  premises; 
which  erroneous  major  premises,  unconsciously  to  them,  tend  to 
militate  against  the  dignity  and  safety  of  a pedestrian  who  is  law- 
fully walking  on  an  unguarded  street  crossing  or  on  an  unguarded 
roadway  having  no  sidewalks ; and  thus  unfailingly  or  continually 
to  cause  this  small  class  of  conscientious  auto*-drivers  within  a 
stated  period,  and  in  violation  of  every  relevant  ethical  or  humane 
principle  (1)  to  seriously  or  injuriously  intimidate  or  frighten  very 
many  such  pedestrians,  and  (2)  to  physically  injure  many  such 
pedestrians,  and  (3)  to  deprive  of  life  some  such  pedestrians. 

2.  It  is  highly  probable  that  no  material,  ethical  or  humane  im- 
provement in  the  rhetoric  of  the  traffic  safety  legislation  of  our  Na- 
tion, the  most  civilized  nation  in  the  world,  can  be  attained  until 
those  underlying  principles  evolved  in  this  discussion  which  may 
upon  scientific  investigation  be  proved  to  be  sound,  are  generally 
known  and  understood,  and  consequently  generally  favorably  en- 
tertained in  or  imbibed  by  the  minds  of  at  least  a majority  of  our 
citizens. 

3.  The  Enc.  Brit,  (quoted  in  par.  15,  Jan.  10,  1920)  tells  us 
that  “on  the  Continent  and  in  England  there  was  during  two  cen- 
turies a steady  flow  of  literary  attacks  on  the  reasonableness  of  the 
belief  in  witchcraft”;  a superstitious  belief  or  faith  that  caused 
9,500,000  innocent  unfortunate  persons  (par.  12,  Jan.  10,  1920)  to 
be  legally  charged,  legally  convicted,  and  publicly  executed.  The 


4 


September  10,  1920 

painfulness  of  the  mode  of  killing  those  persons  made  that  a greater 
evil  from  that  point  of  view  than  the  evil  created  by  the  World 
War.”  Nevertheless  it  took  two  centuries  of  educative  criticism  to 
excavate  a relevant  piece  of  paved-over  TRUTH.  (Par.  14,  Jan. 
10,  1920). 

4.  Following  is  an  extract  from  Par.  20,  Jan.  10,  1920:  “Sidg- 
wick,  in  his  Use  of  Words  in  Reasoning,  says:  * * * Our  natural 
tendency,  when  our  reflective  power  is  inexperienced  is  to  fall  un- 
der the  domination  of  (certain)  words — a tendency  which  may  be 
observed  both  in  the  individual  and  in  the  human  race.  This  super- 
stitious attitude  towards  language  shows  itself  in  many  forms ; one 
of  these  forms  is  the  inclination  not  to  suspect  a middle  term  of 
ambiguity.  The  particular  case , S,  is  seen  as  M”  (par.  16,  May  2, 
1916)  “and  if  we  accept  as  true  the  statement  that  all  M is  P,  we 
consider  it  proven  that  S is  P.” 

5.  This  is  one  of  the  most  important  truths  that  has  ever  been 
stated.  If  this  truth  were  generally  or  widely  well  known  it  would 
be  as  generally  and  as  widely  appreciated  and  then  innumerable 
dissensions  and  quarrels  between  two  persons,  and  between  groups 
of  persons,  however  highly  organized  those  groups  may  be,  could 
be  dignifiedly  avoided  by  logical  or  scientific  discussion  and  ex- 
planation. 

The  technical  (that  is  precise)  language  in  which  it  is  written 
gives  it  a clearness  or  a precision  and  a perspicuity  that  could  not 
be  obtained  if  the  author  had  devoted  pages  to  it  by  presenting  it 
in  language  that  logically  untrained  persons  are  only  accustomed 
to.  The  S,  M and  P are  to  the  syllogism  in  logic  what  the  a,  b and  x 
are  to  the  equation  (in  algebra)  and  are  just  as  easily  understood 
and  as  easily  used  as  thought-instruments  as  are  the  algebraic 
literal  terms  and  signs  easily  understood  and  used  after  adequate 
relevant  instruction. 

6.  Unfortunately  in  our  present  still  nonscientific  or  nonlogical 
state  of  public  educating  and  training,  that  truth  is  expressed  in 
terms  that  are  no  more  intelligible  to  most  of  us  than  would  be  a 
message  from  Mars ; whereas,  possibly  the  first  significant  message 
from  Mars  may  be  in  the  form,  S is  M is  P. 

Not  until  after  the  writer  had  been  in  active  business  occupa- 
tion, as  boy  and  man,  for  more  than  thirty-five  years,  would  Sidg- 
wick’s  statement  of  that  truth  have  been  in  the  slightest  degree  in- 
telligible to  him.  When  he  was  somewhat  over  45  years  of  age  a 
person  incidentally  said  to  him : “Why ! it  would  not  be  logical  to 
classify  this  decision  the  way  you  suggest.” 

5 


September  10,  1920 

7.  He  had  before  then  heard  the  words  logic  and  logical  as  he 
had  before  then  heard  the  words  apogee  and  perigee , and  he  had  a 
book  on  logic  in  his  book  case  as  he  had  a book  on  astronomy  in  his 
book  case ; but  until  then  had  thought  the  one  set  of  words  and  the 
book  on  logic,  were  about  as  little  useful  in  every-day  life  or  in 
business  as  the  other  set  of  words  and  the  book  on  astronomy. 

However,  the  coincidence  of  hearing  the  word  logical  in  con- 
nection with  a specific  work  in  hand,  viz:  classification,  that  fre- 
quently perplexed  him,  and  the  fact  that  he  felt  that  he  had  inade- 
quate or  non-scientific  knowledge  of  that  class  of  work,  but  was 
nevertheless  busily  engaged  on  it  every  day,  immediately  caused 
him  to  think  of  his  idle  book  on  logic  (Whately’s)  ; and  he  re- 
examined it  that  evening  with  a lively  interest.  In  a few  minutes 
he  found  to  his  surprise  a chapter  headed  Classification.  He  found 
such  profitable  reading  that  he  has  purchased  and  read  frequently, 
every  treatise  on  logic  that  he  has  been  able  to  find  for  sale;  for 
each  treatise  has  something  useful  that  is  not  found  in  any  other. 
He  knows  of  no  other  class  of  books  that  has  been  as  useful  to  him 
during  the  past  27  years  in  giving  him  a knowledge  of  how  to  dis- 
cover and  to  overcome  or  guard  against  natural  misleading  preju- 
dices and  prepossession  or  obsessions,  and  how  to  detect  almost  in- 
stantly time-wasting  and  mind-confusing  irrelevancies  or  fallacies, 
that  are  likely  to  be  generally  accepted  as  relevancies  and  as  truths. 

8.  In  all  of  his  voluminous  reading  of  newspapers  during  the 
past  60  years  he  has  not  recollected  seeing  the  teaching  or  the 
studying  of  Logic  commended  or  even  mentioned,  nor  seeing  the 
syllogism  favorably  mentioned ; nor  reading  anything  about  minor 
premises  or  major  premises;  minor  term,  middle  term  or  major 
term ; or  that  any  of  those  things  are  necessarily  implements  or  in- 
struments of  thinking,  or  that  they  have  anything  to  do  with  test- 
ing a proposition  and  proving  its  TRUTH  or  discovering  or  ex- 
posing its  FALSITY. 

9.  There  is  reason,  however,  to  believe  that  one  syllogism  was 
published  in  the  newspapers  in  1859  or  1860;  at  that  time  the 
writer  was  12  years  old  and  employed  as  office  boy,  by  Philip  Hamil- 
ton, youngest  son  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  in  his  law  office.  That 
syllogism  was  framed  by  the  immortal  Abraham  Lincoln  in  his  can- 
didacy for  the  Presidency. 

The  following  extract  from  a treatise  on  Argumentation  and 
Debate  tells  us  about  it : 


6 


SUBJECT:  Urgent  need  for  legalizing  the  ethical  right  of  a 
pedestrian  to  dignified  and  safe  passage  on  a roadway  having 
no  sidewalks. 


Washington,  D.  C., 

July  1,  1917. 

The  Honorable  Commissioners 

of  the  District  of  Columbia. 


Gentlemen : 

1.  The  color  of  the  uniform  of  the  United  States  Army  is  ad- 
vertently so  devised  as  to  tend  to  make  its  wearer  not  easily  distin- 
guishable, at  a certain  distance,  from  certain  ordinary  surround- 
ing objects  or  background. 

2.  There  is  now  reason  tovstation  military  forces  at  such 
places  throughout  this  great  Nation  as  to  cause  many  soldiers  to 
have  occasion  to  walk  during  the  night  as  well  as  during  day-time, 
singly  or  in  couples,  along  a roadway  having  no  sidewalks. 

3.  It  is  a practice  of  some  ill-informed  auto  drivers  to  drive 
on  roadways  and  even  on  city  streets  at  a legal  speed  which,  under 
certain  physical  conditions  of  visuality,  may  be  termed  “ driving 
faster  than  they  can  see This  class  of  auto  driver  does  this  on 
the  gambler’s  theory  that  he  will  be  lucky  enough  not  to  encounter 
a pedestrian  who  is  invisible  to  him  until  too  late  to  avoid  killing 
him ; and  some  drivers  do  this  on  a like  theory  that  even  if  they  do 
kill  a pedestrian,  they  will  be  lucky  enough  to  escape  identifica- 
tion; or,  that  in  any  event  they  will  be  accorded  the  complete  re- 
sponsibility-immunity of  the  grade-crossing  engineer. 

4.  Following  are  relevant  instances: 

The  cases  of  the  two  brothers  (Maske)  struck  down  within 
sight  of  their  home  on  Christmas  night  and  on  Thanksgiving 
night,  respectively;  the  second  one  being  left  lying  on  the  road, 
badly  injured;  a fur  piece  being  with  remorseful  kindness  placed 
near  him  by  the  departing  driver,  to  protect  him  from  the  cold 
during  the  long  night.  (Par.  12,  January  5,  1917.) 

5.  The  case  of  Joseph  Shadlock,  19  years  old,  a citizen  of 
Pennsylvania,  a soldier  of  Company  B,  Sixth  Engineer  Corps, 
stationed  at  the  American  University  grounds,  is  another  in- 
stance. He  was  killed  on  a roadway  near  Tennallytown  at  9 


1 


July  1,  1917 


o’clock  on  Sunday  night,  June  17,  walking  arm  in  arm  with  a 
companion.  The  coroner’s  jury  attributed  only  one  cause  as  the 
cause  of  the  death  of  this  boy;  namely:  the  fact  that  the  driver 
could  not  see  the  two  soldiers  before  him  because  of  a too-bright 
light  of  an  approaching  auto.  It  very  properly  recommended  that 
the  regulations  prohibiting  too-bright  lights  on  autos  be  more 
strictly  enforced. 

6.  But  in  accordance  with  the  uniform  policy  of  authorizing 
or  permitting  drivers  of  autos  and  street  cars  to  keep  up  legal 
speed , however  hazardous  to  pedestrians , it  did  not  make  a recom- 
mendation that  a regulation  be  adopted  that  a driver  must  not  go 
faster  than  he  can  see;  so  that  he  will  not  strike  a pedestrian, 
possibly  obscured  by  a fog , a mist , or  a too-bright  light  ahead  of 
him. 

7.  To  run  at  a dangerous  rate  towards  ground  which  he  can- 
not see  or  to  run  faster  than  he  can  see,  is  exactly  analogous  to 
casting  heavy  weights  from  a house  top  without  looking  over  the 
side  to  make  certain  that  no  person  is  below.  That,  to  kill  a per- 
son under  such  circumstances  is  an  act  of  general  malice,  is  held 
to  be  a principle  of  law  from  probably  before  Blackstone’s  time. 
It  is  a sound  ethical  potential  principle  since  the  beginning  of  civ- 
ilization. It  became  nascent  with  the  first  light-bearing  swift- 
moving  vehicle. 

8.  That  this  principle  of  general  malice,  or  responsibility  for 
causing  a death,  is  not  and  cannot  be  applied  by  us  to  a locomotive 
engineer,  creates  a blind-spot  upon,  and  a serious  injury  to,  OUR 
individual  and  our  collective  CONSCIENCE;  for  WE,  and  not  he, 
are  all  ethically  responsible  in  some  way  for  the  evil  that  it  befalls 
him  to  do.  It  is  not  merely  a case  of  conscience  set  at  the  wrong 
hour  (par.  4,  June  22,  1916),  but  it  is  a case  in  which  the  hour  hand 
of  conscience  may  be  figuratively  said  to  hang  limp  and  motionless 
or  IRRESPONSIVE  to  any  humane  power  or  feeling. 

We  read  every  few  days  of  a case  like  this : 

“Baltimore,  June  23,  1917.  A train  struck  a vehicle  near  White 
Hall,  Md.,  containing  two  men,  three  women,  and  one  3-year-old 
child.  The  bodies  were  hurled  a hundred  feet.” 

9.  Sometimes  we  read  of  three  such  groups  in  one  day  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  country.  Sometimes  it  is  a family  group  driven 
by  a hired  driver : grandfather,  grandmother,  son,  daughter-in-law, 
and  three  little  grandchildren.  All  killed  or  mangled. 


2 


July  1 , 1917 

10.  We  turn  from  such  an  item,  at  the  breakfast  table,  to  the 
stock  list  and  are  probably  pleased  to  see  that  the  stock  of  that  rail- 
road and  the  tax  rate  of  that  county,  in  both  of  which  we  are  in- 
terested, stand  at  satisfactory  figures:  and  then  ask  for  another 
cup  of  coffee.  And  that  is  with  most  of  us  the  end  of  our  feeling 
or  sentiment  regarding  those  fatalities. 

11.  The  locomotive  engineer  is  held  by  us  to  be  immune  from 
responsibility  because,  if  he  were  unwilling  to  try  to  run  his  train 
on  schedule  time,  we  all  would  compel  him  to  give  up  that  mode  of 
making  his  living  for  himself  and  family;  and  let  some  other  per- 
son run  it  who  has  no  conscientious  feeling  about  it.  He  looks  to 
us,  and  finds  in  our  approval,  his  justification. 

12.  The  remedial  question  of  the  company  spending  money  for 
safety  gates  and  for  an  adequate  number  of  watchmen  and  ade- 
quate pay  for  them ; and  the  question  of  the  company  and  the  State 
spending  money  for  the  elevating  of  tracks  or  other  roadway  reme- 
dies, are  questions  that  are  too  difficult  for  us,  and  so  most  of  us 
dismiss  them  from  the  mind,  and  content  ourselves  with  looking, 
with  SILENT  approval,  on  patient  but  feeble  individual  efforts, 
(par.  8,  March  31,  1917)  here  and  there,  to  persuade  a company  or 
a community  to  minimize  the  evil. 

13.  By  an  analogy,  unconsciously  and  homicidally  false , to 
which  the  mind  that  is  not  scientifically  (or  logically ) inclined  is 
only  too  prone,  we  extend  much  or  nearly  all  of  this  responsibility- 
immunity  of  the  locomotive  engineer  to  the  street-car  driver  be- 
cause he  also  runs  on  a schedule;  and  by  a like  analogy  also  un- 
consciously and  homicidally  false,  we  further  extend  much  of  this 
false  responsibility-immunity  of  the  street-car  driver  to  the  auto 
driver  because  he  CAN  run  as  fast  as  they  run.  Thus  tending  to 
unconsciously  view  the  street  car  driver  who  kills  a mother  in  sav- 
ing three  seconds,  and  the  auto  driver  who  is  impulsively  or  eagerly 
on  his  way  to  get  his  breakfast  (par.  12,  November  25,  1916)  and 
who  in  his  haste  kills  a seven-year-old  boy — as  immune  from  re- 
sponsibility for  avoidable  deaths,  as  is  viewed  the  locomotive  en- 
gineer of  an  express  train. 

14.  And  consequently  this  paves  the  way  for  the  fallaciously 
homicidal  non  sequitur  (par.  1,  November  25,  1916)  reasoning  that 
because  we  do  not  hold  the  street  car  driver  and  the  auto  driver  to 
blame,  and  as  we  do  not  like  to  feel  that  WE  are  to  blame,  we  must 
of  course  hold  the  pedestrian  victim  to  blame;  for,  we  feel  that 
SOMEBODY  must  be  to  blame. 


3 


July  1,  1917 

15.  The  following  extracts  from  a Washington  paper  of  this 
week  are  relevant  to  the  question  which  is  the  subject  of  this  letter : 

“An  automobile  light  does  not  light  the  road  for  a ‘ reasonable 
distance’  unless  it  is  illuminated  for  the  distance  required  for  stop- 
ping the  vehicle.” 

“Independently  of  any  statute,  it  is  negligence  as  a matter  of 
law,  to  drive  an  automobile  along  the  highway  on  a dark  night  at 
such  speed  that  it  cannot  he  stopped  within  the  distance  that  ob- 
jects can  be  seen  ahead  of  it.”  (Fisher  vs.  O’Brien,  82  P.  Kans. 
317.) 

16.  These  decisions  support  the  theory  implied  in  par.  19,  De- 
cember 6,  1916,  namely:  “The  woman  that  was  recently  killed — 
crossing  a corner  diagonally — by  an  auto,  because,  as  alleged,  it 
was  too  misty  for  the  driver  to  see  her:  (but  evidently  not  too 
misty  for  him  to  run  at  a deadly  legal  speed) — would  be  termed  a 
JAYWALKER.  No  corresponding  term  having  an  appropriate 
accessory  idea  has  been  invented  for  an  auto  driver  that  lawfully 
kills  a pedestrian  by  driving  faster  than  he  can  see , if  the  expres- 
sion is  allowable.  If  RIDICULE  were  a proper  or  dignified  means 
of  educating  or  disciplining,  the  invention  of  such  a term  would 
evidently  be  useful  or  necessary.” 

17.  The  newspapers  stated  that  that  woman  was  the  widow 
of  an  officer  in  the  protective  service  of  the  Government,  a police 
sergeant,  and  she  left  surviving  her  an  only  daughter,  an  invalid, 
who  depended  on  her  mother’s  police  pension  for  support. 

18.  If  the  amendment  suggested  in  this  letter  had  been  for 
some  reasonable  time  a part  of  the  regulations  before  the  time  that 
that  widowd  mother  was  killed,  it  is  certain  that  either  she  would 
have  been  legally  accorded  dignified  and  safe  passage  across  the 
street , or  that  driver  would  legally  have  been  compelled  to  provide 
for  the  support  of  that  dependent  orphaned  invalid  daughter;  in- 
stead of  being  exonerated. 

19.  In  par.  1,  September  11,  and  par.  14,  November  30,  1915, 
is  stated  the  case  of  an  aged  citizen  who  was  run  down  by  a con- 
scientious kind-hearted  ill-informed  auto  driver,  an  official  of  an  au- 
tomobile company,  of  this  city,  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalks. 
The  auto  driver  sympathetically  and  sincerely  informed  the  pedes- 
trian in  answer  to  an  explicit  question,  that  the  only  way  he  can 
thereafter  avoid  being  run  down  again  is  “to  keep  off  the  road” 


4 


July  1,  1917 

20.  That  pedestrian, — in  philosophizing  over  the  incident  and 
reflecting  over  the  uniform  BIAS,  in  favor  of  the  driver,  of  coro- 
ner’s jury  findings, — while  continuing  his  walk  on  that  roadway 
and  turning  around  every  minute  or  so  to  guard  against  other  like 
ill-informed  drivers , sincerely  felt  that  a careful  citizen  in  this 
highly  civilized  peaceful  community,  the  capital  of  the  Nation,  has 
not  as  much  chance  or  show  for  his  life  against  an  ill-informed 
auto  driver  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalks,  as  did  the  settler  of 
300  years  ago  have  on  the  then  footpath  or  trail,  against  the  Indian , 
who  likewise  viewed  him  as  a trespasser;  and  that  the  present 
citizen  when  killed,  and  his  surviving  family,  have  no  sympathy  at 
all  from  his  fellow  citizens  of  the  community ; but  on  the  contrary 
he  is  considered  to  have  been  CARELESS,  NEGLIGENT,  IMPRU- 
DENT, or  a JAY-WALKER;  and  that  thus  is  wiped  out  in  an  in- 
stant, not  alone  his  life,  but  also  a record  or  reputation  of  extreme 
or  commendable  carefulness  during  a long  life;  and  that  all  this 
evil  is  in  part  a result  of  nigh  universal  fallacy  of  nescience  iter- 
antly  published  for  the  misinformation  and  miseducation  of  the 
public,  of  legislators,  of  police  officials,  of  coroner’s  juries,  and  the 
courts,  and  not  publicly  contradicted  (pars.  7 and  8,  November  25, 
1916).  Whereas,  that  settler  had  the  sympathy  of  his  fellowmen 
and  his  surviving  family  had  their  support. 

21.  These  two  soldiers  (par.  5)  and  the  two  brothers  (par.  4) 
had  no  better  chance  or  show  for  their  lives,  than  had  this  aged 
citizen,  on  the  roadway  without  sidewalks. 

22.  While  every  soldier,  and  the  father  and  mother  of  every 
soldier,  must  look  forward  to  the  possibility  of  his  meeting  a vio- 
lent death,  yet  they  look  forward  to  a noble  death;  and  not  to  a vio- 
lent death  caused  in  part  by  the  inadequate  rhetoric  of  a municipal 
law,  and  consequently,  a violent  death  from  an  easily  preventable 
cause;  a class  of  cause  that  the  executive  and  judicial  departments 
do  not  feel  that  they  are  specifically  authorized  or  directed  by  the 
legislative  department  to  do  anything  about  until  after  the  death. 
The  executive  department  then  makes  an  arrest,  if  the  driver  is 
known,  and  the  judicial  department  then  must  by  reason  of  its  pe- 
culiar or  limited  functions,  solicitously  see  to  it  that  no  legal  right 
of  the  auto  driver  is  violated  (par.  5,  June  5,  1917).  It  can  do 
nothing  about  the  purely  ethical  right  of  pedestrians,  because  a ma- 
terially inadequate  safety  law  is  not  ethical;  for  the  name  of  such 
a safety  law  declares  impliedly  that  it  aims  far  from  its  ethical 
goal  (pars.  3,  January  5,  and  22,  March  31,  1917)  ; and  the  judicial 


5 


July  1,  1917 


department  must  decide  according  to  the  law  and  not  according  to 
ethics;  when  the  two  differ. 

23.  In  par.  10,  September  11,  1915,  the  following  statement 
is  made:  It  is  a well  established  principle  that  the  best  remedy 
against  an  evil  cannot  be  discovered,  except  by  accident,  until  the 
causes  of  that  evil  have  been  scientifically  ascertained. 

24.  This  principle  is  in  part  the  writer’s  apology  for  writing 
this  letter:  for  it  will  be  observed  that  this  letter  contains  state- 
ments of  causes  of  the  remediable  evil  under  discussion  that  have 
not  been  mentioned  in  any  of  the  prior  letters;  thus  tending  to 
prove  that  all  the  causes  had  not  heretofore  been  discovered. 

25.  In  par.  21,  September  11,  1916,  he  made  a plea  for  the 
protection  from  auto  dangers  of  the  ex-soldiers  of  the  Civil  War 
and  in  this  letter  he  makes  a plea  for  the  protection  from  auto 
dangers  of  soldiers  of  the  present  army.  This  is  his  additional 
apology  for  the  writing  of  this  letter. 

Sincerely, 

JACOB  FRECH. 


As  has  been  done  with  all  prior  letters  on  this  subject  copies  of 
this  letter  will  be  transmitted,  respectively,  to 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States; 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  District  Supreme  Court; 

The  Judge  of  the  Police  Court,  D.  C., 

The  United  States  Attorney,  D.  C.,  and 

The  Coroner; 

with  the  permission,  and  for  the  reasons,  stated  in  par.  15,  April 
3,  1916. 


6 


September  10,  1920 

“Whenever  the  language  of  an  adversary  is  incomplete,  the 
argument  can  be  more  easily  refuted  if  expanded  to  syllogistic 
form.  Lincoln  adopted  this  method  in  the  debate  with  Douglas  at 
Galesburg,  when  he  thus  placed  his  finger  on  the  exact  point  at 
issue. 

“Now  remembering  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  I 
have  read;  affirming  that  that  instrument  is  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land ; that  the  judge  of  every  State  shall.be  bound  by  it,  and  any 
law  or  constitution  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding ; 
that  the  right  of  property  in  a slave  is  affirmed  in  that  constitution, 
is  made,  formed  into,  and  cannot  be  separated  from  it  without 
breaking  it;  durable  as  the  instrument,  part  of  the  instrument, — 
what  follows  as  a short  and  even  syllogistic  argument  from  it. 

“I  think  it  follows,  and  I submit  to  the  consideration  of  men 
capable  of  argumenting,  whether  as  I state  it,  in  syllogistic  form, 
the  argument  has  any  fault  in  it? 

“Nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can  destroy 
a right  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

“The  right  of  property  in  a slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

“Therefore,  nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can 
destroy  the  right  of  property  in  a slave. 

“I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in  that  argument; 
assuming  the  truth  of  the  premises,  the  conclusion,  so  far  as  I have 
capacity  at  all  to  understand  it  follows  inevitably. 

“There  is  no  fault  in  it,  as  I think,  but  the  fault  is  not  in  the 
reasoning,  the  falsehood,  in  fact,  is  a fault  in  the  premises. 

“I  believe  the  right  of  property  in  a slave  is  not  distinctly  and 
expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution. 

“Judge  Douglas  thinks  it  is.” 

10.  It  is  probable  that  in  Mr.  Lincoln’s  time  the  fact  was  not 
known  that  in  a written  deductive  syllogism  of  the  First  Figure  in 
the  quantity  of  extension,  having  affirmative  premises,  the  conclu- 
sion can  be  obtained  by  dittoing  from- the  premises  without  writ- 
ing one  significant  word  as  a part  of  the  conclusion,  as  is  illustrated 
in  par.  16,  May  2,  1918.  Otherwise  he  could  have  known  of  it,  and 
it  would  not  have  been  necessary  for  him  to  say  “so  far  as  I have 
capacity  at  all  to  understand  it,  the  conclusion  follows  inevitably 
from  these  premises” ; he  could  have  said  he  knows  that  it  does. 


7 


September  10,  1920 

11.  Paragraph  16,  May  2,  1916,  demonstrates  that  the  con- 
clusion is  in  premises  of  that  class,  in  that  it  can  be  obtained  by 
dittoing  from  them.  No  mathematical  demonstration  can  convey 
more  certainty  with  it  than  does  the  illustration  in  par.  16,  May  2, 
1918;  and  the  ones  in  par.  13  and  19  of  this  letter. 

12.  It  is  possible  that  in  the  2,000  years  since  the  discovery  of 
the  Syllogism,  by  Aristotle,  the  thought  or  statement  that  this  class 
of  syllogism  can  be  presented  in  dittoable  form  was  not  brought  to 
light  until  it  was  submitted  to  the  Honorable  Commissioners  on 
May  2,  1918.  Thousands  of  pages  have  been  devoted,  in  the  thou- 
sand or  more  treatises  on  Logic  to  try  to  convince  the  student  that 
the  conclusion  is  contained  in  the  premises  of  a valid  syllogism. 
The  ditto  method  does  not  require  more  than  one  line  to  demon- 
strate it  to  the  student. 

13.  Reducing  Mr.  Lincoln’s  syllogism  from  the  logical  quantity 
of  intension  (attribute-form)  to  the  logical  quantity  of  extension 
(concept-or  class-form;  i.  e.  Individual,  Species,  Genus)  it  can  be 
presented  in  dittoable  form,  as  follows: 


Names 

of 

Propositions 

S or 

Case  or 
Individual  or 
Minor  Term 

i 

Copula 

M or 

Species  or 
Middle  Term 

Copula; 

P or 

Genus  or 

Major  Term 

Minor 

Premise 

The  right  of 

property  in  a slave 

is 

a right  distinctly 
and  expressly  af- 
firmed in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the 
United  States 

Major 

Premise 

Ditto 

is 

a right  that  noth- 
ing in  the  Consti- 
tution or  laws  of 
any  State  can  de- 
stroy. 

Conclusion  • 

Ditto 

Ditto 

Ditto 

14.  If  the  thought  stated  in  par.  18,  Nov.  30,  1915,  (that  the 
remedy  is,  a careful  adequate  change  in  the  wording  of  the  regula- 
tions) is  reasonably  true,  reasonably  logical,  reasonably  scientific, 
reasonably  humane,  then  the  killings,  the  injurings  and  the  injuri- 
ous frightenings  caused  directly  by  this  class  of  conscientious  law- 
conforming,  auto-drivers,  are  certainly  and  avoidably  caused  indi- 
rectly by  the  inadequate  rhetoric  of  the  present  legislation;  and, 
consequently,  as  legislation  is  not  self-creative  and  not  self-perpetu- 
ative,  the  remediable  cause  of  the  evil  is  to  be  sought  for  or  to  be 
found  by  a critical  examination  of  the  relevant  conscious  or  un- 
conscious premises  existing  in  the  minds  of  the  proponents  and  of 
the  authors  of  the  existing  legislation  and  existing  in  the  minds  of 
the  proponents  for  a continuance  or  a non-change  of  the  existing 
legislation,  and  existing  in  the  minds  of  the  persons  having  legal 
power  or  authority  to  change  the  regulations. 

8 


September  10,  1920 

15.  Those  relevant  conscious  or  unconscious  premises  prob- 
ably should  for  ethical  and  scientific  reasons  be  ascertained  and  re- 
duced to  writing,  when  time  permits,  after  scientific  investigation; 
the  resulting  syllogisms  can  then  be  calmly  and  scientifically  ex- 
amined,— thus  following  Lincoln’s  example, — in  order  to  see  if 
there  is  any  material  fault  in  the  premises.  If  there  is  any  such 
fault  found  in  the  premises,  it  would  probably  be  unfair  and  homi- 
cidal for  society  to  assume  or  to  contend  that  premises  of  that  class 
support  the  continuance  (or  non-change)  conclusion. 

16.  It  will  be  observed  that  as  a syllogism  is  ordinarily  written, 
and  as  Lincoln  states  his,  each  of  the  three  terms  is  written  twice. 
In  the  dittoable  presentation  each  of  the  terms  is  written  only  once, 
and  then  dittoed. 

17.  If  we  were  educated  logically  in  the  syllogism  as  we  are 
educated  grammatically  in  the  Sentence,  we  would  probably  long 
ago  have  adopted  a new  species  of  written  compound  sentence  or 
proposition, — solely  for  self-use  in  solitary  or  closet  reasoning : — a 
sentence  with  two  affirmative  copulae,  as  “S  is  M is  P” ; to  be  used 
whenever  we  wished  to  express  a complete  affirmative  extensive 
syllogism  as  briefly  as  possible.  This  species  of  sentence  makes 
three  affirmations  by  writing  only  two  affirmations.  It  is  con- 
vincing as  it  stands.  It  expressly  says  that  S is  M and  that  M is  P, 
and  by  so  doing  it  impliedly  says  that  S is  P.  The  algebraist  who 
writes  a<  b < c knows  from  that  expression  that  a<  c.  An  im- 
plicit assertion  is  as  evident  to  an  experienced  reasoner  as  an  ex- 
plicit assertion. 

18.  Inexperienced  or  untrained  reasoners  are  likely  to  neglect 
or  to  shut  their  eyes  to  many  of  the  implicit  false  or  absurd  or 
vicious  assertions  contained  in  some  of  their  every-day  explicit  as- 
sertions, and  in  that  way  they  spread  falsehoods,  absurdities  or 
vice,  that  they  are  not  aware  of,  or  that  they  think  are  an  insepa- 
rable attribute  of  stating  (or  speaking)  and  consequently  do  not 
feel  that  they  are  answerable  for  them ; and,  also,  consequently  are 
self-debarred  from  feeling  Nature’s  nigh  omnipotent  ethical  or 
social  deterrent,  SHAME  (par.  47,  May  2,  1918)  ; an  instinctive, 
self-acting,  DETERRENT  EMOTION,  that,  if  not  blunted  or 
stiflled  by  miseducation  (or  education  that  tacitly  or  avowedly 
ignores  the  science  of  frank,  honest  and  sincere  thinking  and 
stating) — tends  to  cause  one  to  shrink,  not  merely  from  doing  an 
act  forbidden  by  a wise  LAW,  but  also  tends  to  cause  one  to  shrink 
from  doing  any  act  that  contravenes  (or  is  forbidden  by)  the  prin- 


9 


September  10,  1920 

ciple  of  COURTESY  (graciousness,  or  comity,  or  deference,  par. 
40,  May  2,  1918),  although  permitted  or  countenanced  by  an  un- 
ethically-worded legal  Major  Premise;  as  for  instance,  mind-threat- 
ening, body-threatening  and  life-threatening  discourtesy  to  a pedes- 
trian; picketing,  or  peace-breach  provoking  public  ridicule  of  any 
person ; invoking  the  eviction  law  and  evicting  lone,  aged  widows, 
regardless  of  inclemency  of  weather,  who  had  not  yet  found  or  se- 
cured a new  home  in  which  they  could  find  shelter ; and  the  like  acts. 

19.  It  may  be  useful  to  add  a further  reason  why  Logic  ought 
to  be  introduced  into  and  openly  or  frankly,  honestly  and  sincerely 
taught  in  our  public  schools,  as  soon  as  opportunity  permits : 

Whenever  a little  child  points  to  something  of  which  it  had 
never  seen  the  like,  and  asks  “Papa!  (or  Mamma!)  What  is  that”? 
that  child  is  pointing  to  a thing  whose  name  is  the  S or  the  Minor 
Term  of  a potential  deductive  syllogism  planted  or  sprouting  in  that 
child’s  mind  at  that  moment;  when  it  is  told  that  thing  (S)  is  an 
elephant,  for  instance;  that  answer,  elephant,  is  the  M or  Middle 
Term  of  that  growing  or  expanding  syllogism.  The  child  is  now  in 
conscious  possession  of  the  Minor  Premise  (S  is  M)  of  that  syllo- 
gism. The  metaphorical  memory-searcher  in  the  child’s  memory 
box,  always  on  the  alert  for  syllogistic — or  thinking-elements, 
searches  for  any  relevant  major  premise  that  it  may  possibly  find 
stored  in  the  child’s  mind.  Let  us  assume  that  in  this  instance  it 
has  found  one  (M  is  P) ; let  us  also  assume  that  we  who  read  this 
do  not  know  until  we  reach  the  end  of  this  paragraph  what  relevant 
major  premise  was  thus  found.  Now  the  memory-searcher  tells 
the  child  by  a memory-flash  what  that  relevant  major  premise  is. 
The  child  is  now  conscious  of  that  relevant  major  premise  and  con- 
sequently naturally,  instinctively,  instantly,  draws  (or  mentally 
dittoes)  the  conclusion  (S  is  P)  from  the  two  premises. 

In  this  supposed  instance,  it  acts  on  that  conclusion.  In  the 
wTords  of  Locke,  all  its  operative  powers  are  directed  by  the  light 
of  the  precedent  knowledge  in  its  understanding.  The  father  has 
no  knowledge  of  what  has  transpired  in  that  child’s  mind.  We 
know  a little  more  about  that  than  he  does,  because  we  know  what 
we  have  thus  far  here  written,  or  read.  The  child  acting  on  the 
conclusion,  which  we  are  not  yet  supposed  to  know,  says : “Papa, 
please  give  me  ten  cents”?  it  gets  the  money;  dashes  off  and  soon 
comes  back  with  a bag  of  peanuts  and  gleefully  throws  one  after 
another  to  the  elephant.  The  child  had  never  before  seen  an  ele- 
phant, and  did  not  know  what  one  looked  like ; but  long  ago  it  had 


10 


September  10,  1920 

overheard  one  boy  telling  another  boy,  in  a street-car,  what  sport 
it  is  to  throw  peanuts  to  an  elephant ; the  boy  did  not  describe  the 
elephant.  The  following  illustration  may  be  said  to  give  a word- 
picture  from  that  child’s  mind : ' 


Names 

of 

Propositions 

S or 

Case  or 
Individual  or 
Minor  Term 

Copula 

M or 

Species  or 
Middle  Term 

Copula 

P or 

Genus  or 

Major  Term 

Minor 

Premise 

This  awfully  big 
monster  that  I am 
looking  at  with  fear 

is 

an  elephant 

Major 

Premise 

Ditto 

is 

a friendly  anima-l 
that  gives  pleasure 
to  children  who 
feed  it  with  pea- 
nuts. 

Conclusion 

Ditto 

Ditto 

Ditto 

20.  If  any  reasonable  premises  are  known  to  persons  who 
tacitly  but  carefully  withhold  from  that  child  and  from  nearly  all 
other  boys  and  girls  the  opportunity  to  acquire,  when  they  get  well 
in  their  teens,  knowledge  of  the  machinery  of  the  mind  and  how 
Nature  uniformly  makes  the  mind  work  when  it  is  syllogizing,  in- 
ductively or  deductively,  i.  e.,  thinking,  or  trying  to  discover  or  to 
solve  any  of  our  daily  problems  (whether  of  benefiting  ourselves  or 
of  risking  or  saving  the  lives  of  others),  or  to  make  intellectual  or 
physical  discoveries  or  inventions — it  is  probably  equally  reason- 
able to  ask  those  persons  to  state  frankly,  honestly,  sincerely  and 
explicitly,  for  the  information  of  society, — whose  intellectual  and 
ethical  advancement  they  are  certainly  retarding, — the  premises 
on  which  they  base  their  conclusion  that  such  knowledge  ought 
properly  to  be  so  withheld;  or  that  such  knowledge  should  be  im- 
parted to  only  a small,  select  class  of  persons,  and  then  only  from 
certain  text-books  on  logic  that  are  so  carefully  censored  that  the 
students  will  limit  the  science  to  PHYSICS  and  not  be  inclined  to 
apply  the  science  to  ETHICS,  or  to  certain  systems,  some  of  whose 
propositions  are  not  based  on  tested  or  sound  premises. 

21.  The  “Papa  (or  Mamma)  ! What  is  that”?  and  the  “Why”? 
and  the  “What  does  it  do”?  and  the  “What  for”?  of  children  is  the 
natural  instinctive  fluttering  of  the  inductive  and  deductive  meta- 
phorical wings  (par.  22,  May  2,  1918)  of  their  still  logically  acute 
little  minds,  before  those  wings  are  ruthlessly  clipped  or  fettered ; 
in  most  instances  for  life ; so  that,  at  best,  they  are  content  to  soar 
in  the  lower  paralogistically  and  sophistically  and  self-contra- 
dictorily  infested  strata;  largely  mistaking  emotional  operations 


11 


September  10,  1920 

and  results  for  intellectual  operations  and  results;  mistaking  par- 
ticular premises  for  universal  premises ; possibility  for  probability, 
and  prdbability  for  certainty ; and  thinking  that  some  proposition 
is  necessarily  true,  notwithstanding  its  evident  illogicality  or 
absurdity,  because  a great  majority  of  people,  whom  they  know,  say 
that  they  believe  it  to  be  true  or  never  admit  that  they  do  not  be- 
lieve it  to  be  true. 

22.  It  may  be  well  to  consider  also  how  much  more  interesting, 
instructive  and  progressive  it  would  be  for  parents,  teachers  and 
professors,  if  they  had  such  knowledge  of  logic  that  they  could  ob- 
serve the  syllogisms  constantly  budding  and  expanding  in  the  minds 
of  their  children,  scholars  and  students.  It  would  certainly  be  more 
pleasurable  and  profitable  than  to  observe  the  budding  and  ex- 
panding of  flowers,  agreeable  as  that  sight  is. 

23.  It  is  deemed  useful  to  close  this  letter  with  relevant  ex- 
tracts : from  “The  Laws  of  Discursive  Thought,”  being  a Text- 
Book  on  Formal  Logic,  1877,  by  James  McCosh,  L.L.D.,  President 
of  New  Jersey  College,  Princeton,  formerly  Professor  of  Logic  and 
Metaphysics,  Queen’s  College,  Belfast: 

“If  we  look  back  half  a century  we  find  Formal  Logic  taught  in 
nearly  all  the  colleges  of  Great  Britain  and  America,  but  exercising 
an  influence  infinitely  less  than  nothing  (to  use  a phrase  of  Plato’s) . 
Some  of  the  professors  and  tutors  were  expounding  it  in  a dry  and 
technical?  manner , which  wearied  young  men  of  spirit,  and  bred  a 
distaste  for  the  study ; while  others  adopted  an  apologetic  tone  for 
occupying  even  a brief  space  with  so  antiquated  a department.” 
“We  believe  that  more  than  one  half  of  the  error  in  the  world  pro- 
ceeds not  from  mere  ignorance,  but  from  inattention  and  confu- 
sion, which,  finding  us  ignorant , tends  to  keep  us  in  ignorance. 
Logic  helps  to  cure  the  evil  by  requiring  of  us  to  determine  what 
are  the  notions , and  to  place  those  fully  and  fairly  before  the  mind. 

“The  syllogistic  analysis  of  reasoning,  so  far  as  is  known,  was 
first  unfolded  by  Aristotle,  and  constituted  the  most  certain  and 
altogether  the  greatest  discovery  ever  made  in  mental  science .” 

From  “Elements  of  Logic  designed  as  a Manual  of  Instruction, 
1863,  by  Henry  Coppee,  A.  M.,  Professor  of  English  Literature  in 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  teacher  of  Logic  in  the  United 
States  Military  Academy  at  West  Point: 


12 


September  10,  1920 

“There  are  many  persons  of  quick  but  erratic  minds  who  rea- 
son with  such  dangerous  sophistry  that  the  most  delicate  logical 
tests  alone  can  expose  the  fallacy,  of  which  indeed  they  may  not 
themselves  be  entirely  aware. 

“As  such  tests  have  not  been  within  the  reach  of  the  multitude , 
it  is  thus  that  men  have  become,  for  want  of  popular  knowledge  of 
Logic , at  once  self -deceivers  and  deluders  of  mankind,  have  estab- 
lished illogical  religious  creeds,  monstrous  social  fallacies,  false 
theories  of  Government,  which  are  immediately  made  manifest  by 
the  simple  application  of  Logic 2* 

24.  The  possibility  that  physical,  intellectual  and  ethical  ad- 
vancement of  this  Nation  might  result,  if  any  of  the  principles 
herein  discussed  are  found  to  be  reasonably  sound,  is  the  writer’s 
apology  for  intruding  upon  the  valuable  time  of  the  Honorable 
Commissioners.  He  feels  that  he  is  doing,  with  due  deference  and 
loyalty,  what  every  citizen  ought  to  do,  to  repay  his  country  for  its 
gracious  protection. 

Sincerely, 

JACOB  FRECH. 


As  has  been  done  with  all  prior  letters  on  this  subject,  copies  of 
this  letter  will  be  transmitted  respectively  to 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States; 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  District  Supreme  Court; 

The  Judge  of  the  Police  Court; 

The  United  States  Attorney,  D.  C.,  and 

The  Coroner 

with  the  permission  and  for  the  reasons  stated  in  par.  15,  April 
3,  1916. 


13 


SUBJECT:  Probable  dependence  of  legalizing  the  ethical  rights 
of  pedestrians  on  the  popularizing  the  teaching  of  logic. 


Washington,  D.  C.,. 
August  14,  1921. 

The  Honorable  Commissioners 

of  the  District  of  Columbia. 


Gentlemen : 

1.  Adverting  to  the  fourteen  letters  addressed  to  the  Commis- 
sioners during  the  period  of  five  years,  September  11,  1915,  to 
September  10,  1920,  on  the  subject  of  the  ethical  but  not  yet  legal 
right  of  pedestrians  to  dignified  and  safe  passage  on  .a  street 
crossing  and  on  a roadway  having  no  sidewalks,  attention  is 
respectfully  invited  to  the  following  extracts  from  some  of  those 
letters : 

(Par.  2,  Sept.  10,  1920.)  It  is  highly  probable  that  no  material, 
ethical  or  humane  improvement  in  the  rhetoric  of  the  traffic  safety 
legislation  of  our  Nation,  the  most  civilized  Nation  in  the  World, 
can  be  attained  until  those  underlying  principles  evolved  in  this  dis- 
cussion which  may  upon  scientific  investigation  be  proved  to  be 
sound,  are  generally  known  and  understood,  and  consequently  gen- 
erally favorably  entertained  in  or  imbibed  by  the  minds  of  at  least  a 
majority  of  our  citizens. 

(Par.  3,  Sept.  10,  1920.)  The  Enc.  Brit.,  quoted  in  par.  15,  Jan. 
10,  1920,  tells  us  that  “on  the  Continent  and  in  England  there  was 
during  two  centuries  a steady  flow  of  literary  attacks  on  the  rea- 
sonableness of  the  belief  in  witchcraft” ; a superstitious  belief  or 
faith  that  caused  9,500,000  innocent  unfortunate  persons  (par.  12, 
Jan.  10,  1020)  to  be  legally  charged,  legally  convicted  and  publicly 
executed.  The  painfulness  of  the  mode  of  killing  these  persons 
was  a greater  evil  from  that  point  of  view  than  the  evil  created 
by  the  World  War.  Nevertheless  it  took  two  centuries  of  educative 
criticism  to  excavate  a relevant  piece  of  paved-over  TRUTH  (Par. 
14,  Jan.  10,  1920). 

(Par.  7,  Jan.  10,  1920.)  While  that  lamentable  destruction 
of  human  life  was  going  on  in  every  Christian  country,  as  now 


1 


August  14,  1921 

goes  on  the  destruction  of  pedestrian  lives  because  of  a nigh 
universal  false  belief , the  ill-informed,  ill-trained,  conscientious 
public  looked  on  as  placidly  and  nondisapprovingly,  as  nearly  all 
of  us  do  NOW  on  the  wounding  and  killing  of  pedestrians  classed 
by  various  Coroner’s  juries,  many  newspapers,  and  other  makers 
of  public  opinion,  as  species  of 

Careless  pedestrian  (Par.  1 to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916)  ; 
Negligent  pedestrian  (Par.  1 to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916)  ; 
Imprudent  pedestrian  (Par.  17  and  18,  Mch.  31,  1917)  ; 
Jaywalking  pedestrian  (Par.  2 to  19,  Dec.  6,  1916)  ; 
Newspaper-reading  pedestrian  (Par.  23,  May  2,  1918)  ; 
Dangerous  or  defiant  pedestrian  (Par.  13,  Jan.  5,  1917)  ; 
that  is,  they  constitute  a genus  of 
Ill-deserving,  or 
Reprehensible  persons, 

by  reason  of  the  aversive  acessory  ideas  in  those  terms. 

(Par.  8,  Jan.  10,  1920.)  Some  day,  possibly,  in  a future  gen- 
eration, when  logic — the  science  of  frank,  honest  and  sincere 
thinking — shall  be  adequately  taught  in  the  public  schools  and 
applied  to  the  realm  of  Ethics,  constituting  it  a science  necessarily 
limited  to  conduct  between  human  beings,  and  towards  the  lower 
animals,  and  serving  as  an  acknowledged  goal  to  legislation,  our 
then  better  informed  and  trained  makers  of  public  opinion  may 
begin  to  see  that  the  persons  who  are  being  legally  wounded  and 
killed  by  drivers  are  nearly  all  species  of 

Immature  (Par.  11  to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916)  ; 

Aged  (Par.  17,  Mch.  31,  1917)  ; 

Inexperienced  (Par.  11  to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916)  ; 

Timid  (Par.  11  to  17,  Nov.  25,  1916)  ; 

Eye-defective  (Par.  21,  Jan.  5,  1917)  ; 

Ear-defective  (Par.  3 to  30,  Mch.  31,  1917)  ; 

Infirm  (Par.  10-c,  Jan.  10,  1920)  or 
Invalid  persons; 

that  is,  they  constitute  a genus  of 
Unfortunate  persons,  or 
Outlawed  persons,  or 
Doubly-handicapped  persons, 

unable  to  successfully  cope  against  homicidal  conditions  that  the 
defective  rhetoric  of  the  law  permits  or  creates. 

(Par.  9,  Jan.  10,  1920.)  A number  of  cases  tending  to  support 


2 


August  14,  1921 

this  theory  have  been  analyzed  in  the  following  designated  para- 
graphs, namely: 

No.  1 of  Sept.  11,  1915; 

No.  7 of  Nov.  30,  1915 ; 

No.  13  of  June  22,  1916; 

No.  6 of  Oct.  18,  1916; 

No.  11  to  13  of  Nov.  25,  1916; 

No.  2-b  and  12,  18  and  21  of  Jan.  5,  1917 ; 

No.  17  to  19  of  Mch.  31,  1917; 

No.  10,  16  and  37  of  June  5,  1917  (cases  of  President  Wilson 
and  Mrs.  Wilson). 

(Par.  11,  Jan.  10,  1920.)  It  will  probably  be  conceded  that  a 
traffic  safety-law  should  be  couched  in  frank , honest , sincere,  and 
explicit  or  specific  language. 

(A)  Such  a law  would,  for  the  instruction  of  drivers  with 
regard  to  human  life,  have  a major  premise  explicitly  speaking  of 
one  or  more  of  the  species  of  pedestrians  named  in  par.  8,  or  would 
be  so  worded  as  to  show  that  it  has  one  or  more  of  that  species  in 
contemplation.  Our  law  does  not  do  that. 

(B)  It  would  have  one  or  more  major  premises  coupling  the 
term  right  of  way  with  the  term  pedestrian.  Our  law  has  no  such 
major  premise. 

(C)  It  would  have  one  or  more  major  premises  coupling  the 
term  timely-s\owing  down  or  timely -slacking  speed  when  dan- 
gerously approaching  a pedestrian' s path,  with  the  term  vehicle 
or  street  car.  Our  law  has  no  such  major  premise. 

(Par.  18,  Jan.  10,  1920.)  The  probably  extreme  importance 
to  the  physical,  intellectual  and  ethical  advancement  of  this  Nation 
that  might  necessarily  result  from  a 4 scientific  discussion  of  the 
question  of  the  ethical  but  not  yet  legal  right  of  a pedestrian  (say, 
a mother,  par.  7,  June  5,  1917),  to  dignified  (par.  15,  June  22, 
1916)  and  safe  passage  on  a street  crossing  or  on  a roadway  having 
no  sidewalks,  is  the  apology  of  the  writer  for  this  unavoidably 
long  contribution  to  such  discussion.  It  being  possible  that  as  a 
logical  consequence  of  the  instituting , when  popular  opinion  will 
permit , a Governmental  Department  of  Science  (pars.  23  and  24, 
May  2,  1918)  there  would  result  Governmental  initiative  and 
encouragement  of  the  study  by  our  public-school  teachers  and 
scholars,  and  consequently  by  most  of  our  people  and  by  the  teach- 
ers and  scholars  in  the  higher  educational  institutions,  of  the 


3 


August  1J>,  1921 

science  and  the  art  of  frank,  honest,  sincere,  humanely  purposive, 
or  telic,  thinking  (par.  41,  May  2,  1918). 

(Par.  19,  Jan  10,  1920.)  Frank,  honest  and  sincere  thinking 
is  a prerequisite  to  frank,  honest  and  sincere  stating.  Frank,  hon- 
est and  sincere  stating  (veracious  stating)  to  every  person  or 
group  of  persons,  that  is  ethically  entitled  to  a veracious  state- 
ment— where  courtesy  or  modesty,  or  consideration  for  the  welfare 
of  the  addressee  (an  invalid,  for  instance)  does  not  enjoin  silence 
or  kindly  disposed  deception — is  probably  a prerequisite  to  the  earn- 
ing of  the  CONFIDENCE,  TRUST  or  SYMPATHETIC  feeling  of 
that  person,  or  group  of  persons;  and  is,  consequently,  probably  a 
prerequisite  to  the  establishing  and  preserving  UNIVERSAL 
ethical  or  social  HARMONY  (par.  40,  May  2,  1918). 

Such  a result  would  tend  to  the  discovery  of  major  premises 
to  insert  in  the  Police  Regulations  that  would  tend  to  insure  to 
PEDESTRIANS,  to  human  beings,  the  legal  right  to  dignified  and 
safe  passage  on  a street  crossing  and  on  a roadway  having  no 
sidewalks. 

(Par.  20,  Jan.  10,  1920.)  When  once  the  scientific  and  ethical* 
ATTITUDE  of  MIND  is  formed  in  any  group,  it  is  probable  that 
it  would  be  considered  by  the  majority  of  that  group,  to  be  as 
unscientific,  as  unethical,  as  DISHONORABLE,  for  any  two  or 
more  persons  to  engage  in  discourteous  or  vindictive  intellectual 
Or  physical  combat,  as  it  is  now  considered  to  be  educative,  enter- 
taining and  HONORABLE  to  engage  in  scientific,  courteous  or 
playful  intellectual  or  physical  contests. 

(Par.  12,  May  2,  1918.)  It  is  probably  as  certain  as  it  is 
remarkable  and  lamentable  that  many  educated  persons  have  had 
no  opportunity  to  have  knowledge  of  what  the  words  Middle  Term 
stand  for ; and  that  probably  very  many  educated  persons  have  no 
adequate  knowledge  of  what  the  words  Middle  Term  stand 
for.  * * * Probably  much  of  each  of  the  ethical  treatises  of 

the  Nineteenth  and  earlier  centuries  is  practically  valueless  or 
worse  because  the  derived  conclusions  are  drawn  from  dogmatic 
premises  or  from  premises  containing  either  an  Undistributed 
Middle  Term  or  an  Ambiguous  Middle  Term  or  some  other  viola- 
tion of  the  rules  of  the  Syllogism. 

(Par.  10,  May  2,  1918.)  Logic  teaches  us  that  having  discov- 
ered any  one  principle  of  nature  we  can  record  it  in  the  form  of  a 
General  Proposition  (or  TRUTH)  and  place  or  file  it  in  the  record- 
body  of  SCIENCE,  thus  forming  or  creating  an  exhaustless 


4 


August  lJf,  1921 


TRUTH-TREASURY,  upon  which  we  can  FOREVER  make 
drafts:  each  draft  being  in  the  form  of  a MINOR  PREMISE  of 
a deductive  syllogism;  so  that  whenever  we  wish,  in  any  certain 
CASE  (phenomenon,  object,  problem,  difficulty,  etc.,)  to  know  or 
to  use  any  subordinate  or  unobvious  individual  or  specific  TRUTH 
INVOLVED  (or  inexplicitly  contained  or  embodied)  in  such  a 
recorded  or  known  general  proposition,  we  can  by  the  exercise  of 
our  trained  logical  powers  or  ingenuity,'  obtain  that  involved  indi- 
vidual or  specific  truth  by  DEDUCTION  (or  deductive  methods)  ; 
by  using  that  general  proposition  as  a MAJOR  PREMISE  of  the 
necessarily  resulting  deductive  SYLLOGISM. 

2.  In  order  that  any  intelligent  thinking  person  may  be  enabled 
in  a few  hours  to  make  himself  or  herself  familiar  with  what  has 
been  viewed  as  a mystery,  or  the  mystery,  of  Syllogism  or  HOW 
we  THINK,  the  writer  has  placed — upon  one  page  of  the  accom- 
panying inclosure,  entitled  “SisMisP,  or  the  a b c of  Thinking,” 
as  nearly  as  words  can  do  so — a moving  picture  of  typical  intel- 
lectual successive  momenta  constituting  a Thought-Unit.  The 
second  page  of  the  inclosure  contains  what  may  prove  to  be  useful 
relevant  information.  The  aim  of  the  inclosure  is  to  convince  any 
person — who  is  interested  in  Education  and  its  function  in  advanc- 
ing the  Nation — that  the  frank,  honest,  sincere  and  adequate 
teaching  of  Logic  in  the  public  schools,  will  be  of  greater  impor- 
tance and  utility  than  any  subject  now  being  publicly  taught; 
because  it  will  tend  to  enhance  in  value  the  personal  efficiency 
produced  by  every  one  of  the  other  subjects  that  students  are  now 
learning ; it  will  tend  to  affix  some  degree  of  INITIATIVE  to  every 
acquired  accomplishment.  Compare  a person  who  is  an  illogical 
or  emotional  thinker,  with  a person  who  is  in  any  degree  a logical, 
and  consequently  a calm,  thinker. 

3.  Objection  may  naturally  arise  to  the  name  SisMisP  or 
Sismisp;  one  reason  being  that  it  is  not  euphonious.  Precision 
(or  univocality)  and  connotativeness  are  essential  in  the  choice  or 
invention  of  a term.  There  is  probably  no  word  in  the  English 
language  that  is  as  precise  and  as  connotative  as  Sismisp.  This 
one  word  is  a miniature  chapter  on  thinking.  Many  pages  would 
be  required  to  enumerate  the  instructive  connotation  which  it 
suggests. 

For  instance:  No  legislator  can  make  any  precept  whatever 
(law,  regulation,  etc.)  or  state  any  principle,  for  guidance,  that  is 
not  reducible  to  the  propositional  form  M is  P.  No  police  officer 


August  lJf.  1921 

can  observe  anything  that  comes  within  his  disciplinary  province 
that  is  not  representable  by  the  S,  and  when  he  decides  to  act  in 
the  matter,  he  decides  that  this  S is  M.  His  eyes  or  ears  give  him 
the  S and  his  memory  of  his  instructions,  constituting  part  of  his 
understanding,  or  knowledge,  gives  him  the  M.  As  more  fully 
explained  in  par.  25,  May  2,  1918,  the  prosecuting  officer  or  the 
plaintiff’s  attorney  looks  for  the  best  relevant  M that  he  can  find 
and  then  tries  to  convince  the  jury  and  the  judge  that  S is  M; 
whereas  the  attorney  for  the  accused  or  the  defendant  aims  to 
prove  that  the  other  side  has  the  wrong  S or  the  wrong  M,  or  the 
like.  When  the  judge  sentences  any  person,  his  sentence  is 
reducible  to  the  propositional  form  S is  P.  If  he  states  also  either 
one  of  the  two  premises  as  a reason  why  he  pronounces  the  sen- 
tence, he  introduces  the  M of  the  syllogism.  If  he  states  both 
premises,  he  says : S is  M and  M is  P ; therefore  S is  P ; or  S is 
P because  S is  M and  M is  P. 

4.  Thinking  it  possible  that  the  Commissioners  may  desire  to 
bring  the  information  contained  in  the  inclosure  to  the  attention 
of  scientific  bodies  and  to  Educators  of  the  Nation,  for  an  exacting 
criticism  or  for  their  information,  the  writer  has  had  a large  num- 
ber printed,  with  that  end  in  view ; and  he  will  be  pleased  to  present 
to  the  Commissioners  as  many  copies  as  they  may  desire,  at  any 
time,  or  times , for  any  purpose  or  use  that  they  may  find  for  them. 

5.  Following  are  additional  relevant  extracts  from  prior 
letters : 

(Par.  14,  Sept.  10,  1920.)  If  the  thought  stated  in  par.  18, 
Nov.  30,  1915,  (that  the  remedy  is,  a careful  adequate  change  in 
the  wording  of  the  regulations)  is  reasonably  TRUE,  reasonably 
logical,  reasonably  scientific,  reasonably  HUMANE,  then  the  kill- 
ings, the  injurings  and  the  injurious  frightenings  caused  directly 
by  this  class  of  conscientious,  law-conforming,  auto-drivers,  are 
certainly  and  avoidably  caused  indirectly  by  the  inadequate 
rhetoric  of  the  present  legislation;  and  consequently,  as  legislation 
is  not  self-creative  and  not  self-perpetuative,  the  remediable  cause 
of  the  evil  is  to  be  sought  for  or  to  be  found  by  a critical  examina- 
tion of  the  relevant  conscious  or  unconscious  premises  existing  in 
the  minds  of  the  proponents  and  of  the  authors  of  the  existing 
legislation ; and  existing  in  the  minds  of  the  proponents  for  a con- 
tinuance or  a non-change  of  the  existing  legislation,  and  existing 
in  the  minds  of  the  persons  having  legal  power  or  authority  to 
change  the  regulations. 


6 


August  1U,  1921 


(Par.  15,  Sept.  19,  1920.)  Those  relevant  conscious  or  uncon- 
scious premises  probably  should  for  ethical  and  scientific  reasons 
be  ascertained  and  reduced  to  writing,  when  time  permits,  after 
scientific  investigation;  the  resulting  syllogisms  can  then  be  calmly 
and  scientifically  examined — thus  following  Lincoln’s  example 
(par.  9,  Sept.  10,  1920) — in  order  to  see  if  there  is  any  material 
fault  in  the  premises.  If  there  is  any  such  fault  found  in  the 
premises  (such  as  Lincoln  pointed  out)  it  would  probably  be  unfair 
and  HOMICIDAL  for  society  to  assume  or  to  contend  that  premises 
of  that  class  support  the  continuance  (or  non-change)  conclusion. 

6.  The  writer’s  apology  for  this  letter  is  the  extreme  impor- 
tance to  the  Nation  of  a scientific  discussion  of  this  subject,  if  the 
stated  principles  are  reasonably  sound. 

Sincerely, 

JACOB  FRECH. 

As  has  been  done  with  all  prior  letters  on  this  subject,  copies 
of  this  letter  and  its  inclosure  will  be  transmitted,  respectively,  to 
The  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States; 

The  Chief  Justice  of  the  District  Supreme  Court; 

The  Judge  of  the  Police  Court,  D.  C.; 

The  United  States  Attorney,  D.  C.,  and 
The  Coroner, 

with  the  permission,  and  for  the  reasons  stated  in  par.  15,  April 
3,  1916. 


7 


PAGE  FO  UR 


other  classes  of  natural,  conventional  or  legal  superordinates  of  such  person. 
The  power  is  also  of  use  in  every  class  of  debate  in  the  legislative,  executive, 
judicial,  educational,  scientific  and  other  spheres. 

13.  When  once  Applied  Logic,  (reasoning,  thinking)  is  adequately  and 
frankly,  honestly  and  sincerely,  taught  by  public  instruction,  then,  in  a gen- 
eration or  two  the  power  to  discover  the  multitudes  of  material  and  homi- 
cidal fallacies  that  have  for  ages  been  spread  and  uncriticizingly  accepted  as 
venerable  truths  would  thereafter  reduce  TONS  of  literature  to  OUNCES 
of  literature,  and  YEARS  of  confusing  inutile  worrisome-study  to  HOURS 
of  perspicuous  useful  clear-minded  study,  on  some  subjects ; and  tend  to  the 
intellectual,  ethical  and  physical  advancement  of  the  Nation,  and  tend  nec- 
essarily to  the  saving  of  HUMAN  LIFE,  and  to  the  increase  of  SOCIAL 
HARMONY  and  HAPPINESS;  for  all  questions  of  material  difference  of 
opinion  can  by  aid  of  that  power  be  discussed  with  scientific  reasonableness 
and  with  a MODESTY  AND  COURTESY  OF  AFFIRMATION  that  rec- 
ognizes that  the  mind  of  every  person  whose  opinions  we  doubt  is  no  more 
liable  to  natural  error  than  our  own  mind  is  liable  to  natural  error ; or  in  other 
words,  that  WE,  OURSELVES,  are  or  have  been  naturally  liable  to  err  and 
to  exercise  unconscious  undue  selfishness  with  its  attendant  unconscious 
arrogance  or  other  form  of  discourtesy. 

14.  A proposition  that  is  not  supportable  by  two  other  true  propositions 
is  simply  a dogmatic  proposition,  not  entitled  to  be  termed  a truth;  to  term 
it  a truth  is  to  sap  the  foundation  of  VERACITY,  the  sole  ground  of  CON- 
FIDENCE between  human  beings,  which  is  a prerequisite  to  SOCIAL 
HARMONY. 

15.  This  presentation  contains  not  one  new  truth.  The  writer  has  merely 
tried  to  make  PERSPICUOUS  and  COGENT  what  he  has  found,  a little 
here  and  a little  there,  in  his  household  books,  of  authors  that  have  lived 
within  the  past  2,000  years. 

SOME  RELEVANT  EXTRACTS,  FROM  AUTHORS,  ADDI- 
TIONAL TO  THOSE  GIVEN  IN  PRIOR  LETTERS 

16.  Thought  stands  midway  between  Things  and  Words.  Logic  subjects 
Language  to  examination  and  rectification  that  it  may  conform  with  entire 
PRECISION  to  Thought.  All  Thought  that  does  not  found  upon  Things 
is  ab  initio  VICIOUS  and  WORTHLESS.  The  peculiar  concern  of  Logic  is 
Thought.  This  is  the  broad  province  in  which  Logic  possesses  the  right  of 
eminent  domain;  and  though  particular  fields  may  seem  to  be  parceled  out 
among  the  sciences,  any  one  of  them  may  be  called  upon  to  surrender 
possession  and  GIVE  an  ACCOUNT  of  the  transgression  of  law  at  the 
BAR  of  LOGIC,  which  is  accordingly  with  propriety  described  as  the  theory 
of  Classification  or  as  the  principle  of  science;  i.  e.  of  ALL  the  sciences. 

Logic  lies  at  the  base  of  ALL  scientific  INVESTIGATION,  record, 
PROGRESS  and  final  systematic  EXPOSITION.  John  James  Tigert, 
(1856-1906)  Logic. 

17.  To  be  logical  is  to  be  REASONABLE.  The  purpose  of  logic  is  to 
indicate  the  rules  of  valid  inference  so  as  to  facilitate  the  progress  of  the 
mind  in  the  pursuit  of  TRUTH  and  freedom  of  ERROR.  Logic  is  a very 
useful  science,  it  STRENGTHENS  the  intellectual  faculties.  It  makes  it 
easier  to  detect  the  numerous  FALLACIES  which  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously creep  into  books  and  speeches.  The  logical  mind  is  not  drawn  so 
irresistibly  by  an  appeal  to  PREJUDICES,  PASSIONS  and  EMOTIONS. 
Charles  A.  Dubray,  Introductory  Philosophy. 

18.  Invention  of  middle  terms  seems  to  depend  on  natural  SAGACITY 
and  acuteness,  fortified  and  improved  by  exercise.  Boyd,  Logic.  SAGACITY 
finds  out  the  INTERMEDIATE  IDEAS,  to  discover  what  connection  there 
is  in  each  link  of  the  chain,  whereby  the  EXTREMES  are  HELD  TO- 
GETHER. Locke,  Essay  on  the  Human  Understanding. 

SAGACITY  is  a certain  happy  extempore  conjecture  of  the  Middle 
Term.  Aristotle,  Organon,  Posterior  Analytics,  I,  xxxiv. 


(The  a b c of  Thinking) 


Perspicuous  Exhibit  of  Successive  Typical 
Intellectual  Momenta  in  Successful  Discover- 
ing, Inventing,  Convincing,  and  Motive  Mind- 
Reading. 

A perspicuous  tentative  and  somewhat  incomplete  presentation  ot  a tneory  ot  how  Nature  terras  to  mat-.c  me  intellect  wont  wnen  it  is  doing  telic  (.purposive),  in- 
stantaneous  or  prolonged,  THINKING,  (i.  e.  syllogizing),  on  any  subject  whatever;  whether  the  aim  is  DISCOVERY,  INVENTION  or  CONVICTION.  The  pre- 
sentation aims  to  demonstratively  illustrate  one  phase,  (in  categorical  affirmative  form)  of  the  principle  of  Relativity  of  Truth;  viz.:  that  if  any  one  proposition  whatever 
is  true,  at  least  two  other  relevant  propositions  must  be  true  because,  metaphorically  speaking,  every  TRUE  proposition  must  have  TWO  TRUE  vouchers  or  ances- 
tors and  conversely  that  all  propositions  that  contradict  it  must  be  false;  also  that  when  a person  does  any  act,  or  states  any  conclusion  whatever,  and  veraciously  aims  to 
justify  the  act  or  the  conclusion  by  the  statement  of  a reason,  which  functions,  say,  as  a minor  premise,  he  has  by  that  statement  divulged,  partly  or  wholly,  an  im- 
plied major  premise  (principle  or  precept)  in  his  mind  that  caused  or  actuated  that  act  or  conclusion;  and  will  tend  to  do  so  in  all  like  cases,  if  not  modified,  although  he 
himself  may,  by  reason  of  particular  ignorance  or  mental  confusion,  not  have  a distinct  idea,  or  even  any  idea,  what  major  premise  governs  him  in  that  class  of  case; 
and  simply  FEEL  that  his  act  or  conclusion,  is  CONSCIENTIOUS  and  RIGHTEOUS,  whatever  its  ethical  quality  may  be  in  the  opinion  of  better-informed  persons. 

The  presentation  also  demonstrates  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  person  who  is  not  familiar  with  the  functions  of  the  three  terms  and  the  three  propositions  of  a unit  of 
thinking  (a  syllogism)  to  adequately  teach  a scholar  or  a student  HOW  to  THINK.  Hence  the  need  for  popularizing  adequate  knowledge  of  syllogism. 

Inclosure  to  a letter  to  the  Commissioners  of 
the  District  of  Columbia  from  Jacob  Freeh  on 
the  subject  of  probable  dependence  of  the 
legalizing  the  ethical  rights  of  pedestrians 
on  the  popularizing  the  teaching  of  logic. 

TERMS  and  COPULAE 

(with  •ynonym*) 

Limited  Exhibit 

of  the  GENESIS  of  a telic  of  a syllogism 

THOUGHT  (SYLLOGISM)  and 

of  the  typical,  progressive,  intellectual  *'« — 

MOMENTA  of  a successful  act  of  THINKING  — — ^ 

(syllogizing)  about  ANY  subject  WHATEVER. 

(Space  limitation*  prevent  cipanalon  beyond  one  MonoaylloglHin.) 

s 

SUBJECT  of  the  Syllogism; 
SUBJECT  of  the  Minor  Premise; 

SUBJECT  of  the  Conclusion; 

THING;  CASE; 

IN  DIVIDUAL  or  Subspecies;  or  So-called 
Syllogistic 

MINOR  (Thing,  Notion  or)  TERM. 

IS 

COPULA 

(Meaning  either  is, 
or  possesses  the 
relevant  logical  dif- 
ference or  the  rele- 
vant essential  at- 
tribute of) 

M 

MEDIUM  of  the  Syllogism; 

Predicate  of  the  Minor  Premise; 

Subject  of  the  Major  Premise; 

Relevant  Intermediary  Notion  or 
WHAT- WHICH; 

Relevant  SPECIES;  or  So-called  Syllogistic 
MIDDLE  (Notion  or)  TERM. 

IS 

COPULA 

(Meaning  either  is,  or 
possesses  the  relevant 
logical  difference  or 
the  relevant  essential 
attribute  of) 

P 

PREDICATE  of  the  Syllogism; 
PREDICATE  of  the  Major  Premise: 
PREDICATE  of  the  Conclusion; 

GENUS 

or  so-called  Syllogistic 

MAJOR  (Notion  or)  TERM. 

CASE 

GENESIS  of  any  telle  THOUGHT  (SYLLOGISM)  whatever. 

A PERCEPTION  or  apprehension  of,  or  encounter  with,  a CASE,  diffi- 
culty. concernment,  predicament,  or  SUBJECT  of  curiosity,  wonder,  or 
INTEREST,  which  spontaneously  causes  an  emotion  such  as  hope  or  desire, 
fear  or  aversion,  or  oilier  specieB  of  interested  feeling. 

W Insert  an  unambiguous  name  or  description  of  the  case  in  space  (a) 

(») 

O 

o 

o 

o 

QUESTION 

Seven  Typical  intellectual  MOMENTA. 

Ditto 

o 

o 

possibly 

is 

1 Class  relevant  to  the  question  now  in  mind? 
WHAT  1 '■  e-  whether  certain  action  can  or  ought  to  be 
j taken  relevant  to  s certain  desirable  end:  or 
( the  like  ? 

Naturally  resulting  QUESTION,  doubt,  problem,  or  Inquiry  for  needed 
information  or  truth  or  secret  of  Nature  or  solution. 

*> 

QUEST 

for 

MEDIUM 

Nuturaily  resulting  intellectual  IMPULSE  or  QUEST  or  fell  need  for  a 
RELEVANT  MEDIUM  or  standard  or  metaphorical  key,  doorway,  stepping 
stone,  bridge,  tunnel  or  ladder,  etc.;  between  the  two  notions,  S and  1\;  i.  e. 
Quest  for  the  So-called  Syllogistic  Middle  (notion  or)  Term. 

Ditto 

possibly 

is 

n,M,T  ( Known  or  recollectable  or  1 wuir.0 

WHAT  1 ascertainable  relevant  species  f WHR  H 

Ditto 

— ^ 

(he  Ditto 

:* 

CON- 

JECTURE 

Either  (1)  instantaneous  or  (2)  reflective  recollection  of  previously  acquired 
relevant  knowledge  or  experience,  or  (3)  accidental  discovery  or  (4)  delibera- 
tive, ingenious  CONJECTURE,  after  cogitating  say,  one  minute,  hour.  week, 
month,  yenr,  or  lifetime,  resulting  in  conjecturing  the  needed  MIDDLE 
(notion  or)  Term. 

'Insert  nn  unambiguous  name  of  the  conjectured  Middle  Notion  in  space  (b)flf$ 

Ditto 

Ditto 

a,  an  l (b)  ) 

or  - > Ditto 

the  1 \ 

Ditto 

Ditto  Ditto 

MINOR 

PREMISE 

Either  (I)  recollection  or  (2)  inquiry  or  (3)  search  of  scientific  or  other 
records,  or  (4)  careful  relevant  investigation,  observation,  or  experiment, 
resulting  in  determining  definitely  the  needed  TRUE  copula  of  the  MINOR 
PREMISE. 

Ditto 

is 

Ditto  Ditto 

o 

o 

5 

QUEST  for 
MAJOR 
PREMISE 

Naturally  resulting  intellectual  IMPULSE  or  QUEST  for  the  definite 
relevant  (attribute  or)  PREDICATE  of  the  Middle  (notion  or)  Term;  i.  e. 
QUEST  for  the  needed  relevant  Mnjor  Premise. 

O 

O 

The  or  ( DiUo 

Every  1 

is 

WHAT  Ditto 

(» 

MAJOR 

PREMISE 

Either  (1)  recollection  or  (2)  Inquiry  or  (3)  search  of  scientific  or  other 
records,  or  (4)  careful  relevant  investigation,  observation,  or  experiment,  result- 
ing in  ascertaining  the  needed  TRUE  or  authoritative  relevant  MAJOR 

PREMISE. 

^ Insert  an  unambiguous  name  of  the  ascertained  Major  Notion  in  space  (c)fiT 

o 

o 

Ditto  Ditto 

Ditto 

a,  an  ) (c) 
or  the) 

T 

CON- 

CLUSION 

The  needed  solution  or  reasonable  CONCLUSION  or  discovered  Truth  or 
secret  of  nature,  instantly,  necessarily  disclosed  or  deduced  or  inferred 
(or  dittoed)  from  the  two  ascertained  premises;  the  conclusion  having  a degree 
ol  CREDIBILITY  or  CERTAINTY  not  grenter  than  the  least  certain  premise 
has;  and  ENTITLED  to  the  degree  of  ASSENT  that  is  warranted  by  the 
premises. 

Ditto 

Ditto 

O 

o 

Ditto 

S is  M is  P 

The  sentence  recorded  in  this  line  of  spaces  is  a new  form  of  proposition 
or  sentence;  a double-copulaed  compound  form,  S is  M is  P,  which  directly 
expresses  the  premises  and  mediately  expresses  the  conclusion. 

This  form  of  sentence  functions  os  a complete,  categorical,  universal, 
affirmative  Syllogism  of  the  First  Figure  In  the  briefest  form.  It  may  facilitate 
solitary  (doaet)  or  written  reasoning. 

Ditto 

Ditto 

Ditto 

Ditto 

Ditto 

PAGE  TWO 


1.  If  the  reader  desires  to  ascertain  whether  the  tabular  analysis  is  adapted 
to  any  categoric  affirmative  syllogism  with  which  he  is  familiar  he  can  test 
it  by  writing  the  name  of  his  subject  (S)  in  space  (a) ; the  middle  term  (M) 
in  space  (b) ; and  the  major  term  (P)  in  space  (c).  THESE  THREE 
SPACES  ARE  THE  ONLY  SIGNIFICANT  VACANT  SPACES  ON 
THE  PAGE.  He  need  fill  in  no  other  spaces  as  the  printer  has  already 
filled  in  the  other  23  significant  spaces  for  him;  and  by  so  doing  he  has 
printed  entire  the  three  relevant  questions  and  the  minor  premise;  printed 
the  completory  parts  of  the  conjecture  and  the  major  premise;  and  PRINTED 
ENTIRE  THE  CONCLUSION.  If  the  reader  cannot  readily  think  of  a 
familiar  syllogism,  and  does  not  wish  to  use  so  puerile  or  dry  a one  as  is  likely 
to  be  found  in  any  dictionary  (gauged  for  the  capacity  of  an  eight-year-old 
mind),  of  which  probably  the  three  terms  are,  (a)  Socrates;  (b)  man;  (c) 
mortal  or  a mortal  being;  he  can  try  the  following  three  terms  which  prob- 
ably were  parts  of  an  early  vital  aviation  problem;  (a)  the  density  of  the 
human  body;  (b)  a density  equal  to  that  of  a certain  liquid,  wa- 
ter; (c)  a density  equal  to  about  800  times  the  density  of  air.  He 
will  find  that  the  printer  has  already  done  much  of  his  work  in  addition  to 
PRINTING  ENTIRE  THE  CONCLUSION  which  the  aviator  was  striv- 
ing to  reach.  He  will  also  find  that  if  he  contends,  asserts  or  admits  the 
truth  of  the  premises  he  is  compelled  by  the  Principle  of  CONSISTENCY 
to  contend,  assert  or  admit  that  THAT  CONCLUSION  PRINTED  IN  AD- 
VANCE IS  A TRUE  CONCLUSION. 

2.  Whenever, — regarding  any  new  or  strange  case  (SUBJECT)  (S)  which 
is  likely  to  affect  our  interests,  or  in  which  we  are  interested — we  can  form 
a true,  satisfactory  or  pleasing  judgment  (or  proposition),  we  feel  relieved  of 
doubt,  or  we  feel  contented,  satisfied,  or  happy;  that  is  our  instinct  or  na- 
ture. It  is  observable  in  the  child  and  in  the  sage.  If  the  discovered  truth 
portends  danger  we  are  put  on  our  guard  and  feel  a quest  for  means  of 
avoidance.  Telic  Thinking  (syllogizing)  is  consequently  normally,  a daily 
PURSUIT  of  the  Agreeable;  (the  True,  the  Good,  the  Beautiful),  and 
AVOIDANCE  of  the  Disagreeable;  (the  False,  the  Bad  and  the  Ugly),  ac- 
cording to  the  standards  instilled  into  or  imbibed  by  us. 

3.  However,  we  cannot  form  a true  judgment  regarding  a new  or  strange 
case  (subject)  unless  we  know,  or  until  we  learn  of,  or  discover,  a relevant 
satisfactory  or  desirable  attribute  (PREDICATE)  (P)  of  that  subject. 

4.  Hence,  whenever  we  encounter  such  a subject,  and  that  is,  probably, 
frequently  every  hour,  we  are  instinctively  put  in  QUEST  of  such  a predi- 
cate; i.  e.,  having  definitely  the  S (s-  bject)  we  recollect  instantly,  or  search 
and  research  if  need  be,  for  the  P (piedicate),  so  that  we  may  be  able  truth- 
fully and  confidently  to  feel  or  say  that  S (subject)  is  a certain  P (predicate). 

5.  When  we  do  not  immediately  or  adequately  know  that  P,  we  bend 
every  effort  of  the  intellect,  and  the  relevant  senses  if  they  can  help,  to- 
wards attaining  adequate  knowledge  of  that  P. 


6.  For  such  a contingency  Nature  has  planted  in  us,  or  has  allowed  us 
to  acquire  an  instinctive  educable  feeling  of  need  of,  and  consequent  de- 
sire for,  the  aid  of  a Medium  (M)  or  metaphorical  key,  doorway,  stepping- 
stone.  bridge,  tunnel  or  ladder,  etc.,  between  the  two  notions  S and  P,  to 
enable  us  metaphorically  to  reach  or  attain  that  P if  possible,  and  thus  affirm 
or  ieel  it  to  be  a true  or  real  attribute  of  S,  if  Truth  (i.  e.,  the  canons  of 
Logic)  so  permit. 

(JVT  tTItt'tt?*116  C1Vs?  wh.y  in  any  such  case,  every  hour,  we  instinctively 
bYLL°GIZE  or  think,  willy  or  mlly,  blunderingly,  haphazardly  or  emo- 
/ SOnl-^h?,t  !,ke,Uie  ™ore  intelligent  of  the  lower  animals,  or  method- 
!^Wfc!ClentlfiC?lly)j  ,We  do  cth!s  thinking  in  natural  and  strict  accordance 
Z THTHifTwr  fu  d*  degue  °f ,™r  self-training,  or  possibly  teacher-training, 
Snly  „ K™<&™,^™av?  had:  and  with  the  degree  of  intellectual  HON- 
~f,TY  or.DISH°NESTY  that  our  well-disciplined  or  ill-disciplined  desires 
r *rrS,°nS.  °r  van,ty>  or  partialities  or  superstitions  or  natural  prejudices 
°j  obsessions;  Permit  us  to  exercise.  For,— a normal  syl- 
Jogishc  unit,  (termed  a monosyllogism)  is  exactly  S is  M is  P;  neither  more 


nersn;^me„oW^r'S-*-ap0l0rgy  for  this  tentative,  crude,  incomplete  analytical 
perspicuous  exposition  of  an  act  or  unit  of  THINKING,  is  the  hope  that 


PAGE  THREE 


it  may  possibly  be  of  service  to  the  Commissioners  of  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, and  to  our  Federal  and  State  Educational  Authorities,  University  and 
College  Authorities,  Professors  and  Teachers  and  Pupils,  of  all  classes  of 
schools,  and  last,  but  most  important,  Parents,  and  Employers  and  Employees 
in  any  branch,  in  understanding  a remarkably  well-established  and  highly 
lauded,  but  more  remarkably  little-taught  and  much  neglected,  tacitly  dis- 
torted, partisanized,  deflected  and  enslaved,  science  and  art;  the  science  of 
Logic  and  the  art  of  applied  Logic,  i.  e.,  of  frank,  honest  and  sincere  THINK- 
ING, the  prerequisite  to  an  enlightened  altruistic  conscience,  to  veracity  and 
to  sincere  courtesy. 

9.  The  syllogistic  form  can  perspicuously  be  applied  to  ASSURING  ONE- 
SELF, or  REMINDING  A CONTESTANT,  that  ANY  two  expressed  prop- 
ositions (enthymeme)  of  every  valid  syllogism  (argument)  imply  the  third 
proposition  of  that  syllogism;  for  instance: 


( contends  ) 

Whoever  explicitly  - asserts,  or 
( admits  ) 

Thereby  impliedly  “ 

that  S 

because  “ 

that 

is 

M 

is 

p 

(major  premise) 

( contends  f 
Whoever  explicitly  - asserts,  or 
( admits  ) 

Thereby  impliedly  “ 

that  S 

because 

is 

M 

is 

p 

(minor  premise) 

that  “ 

j contends  1 
Whoever  explicitly  - asserts,  or ' 

) admits  ) 

that  S 

and  that 

is 

M 

is 

p 

Thereby  impliedly  “ 

that  “ 

“ 

“ 

(conclusion) 

10.  Very  frequently  the  contender  or  asserter  or  admitter  is  completely 
unconscious  of  the  import  of  some  one  or  more  of  his  implied  contentions, 
assertions  or  admissions,  or  is  completely  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  he 
has  made  any  implied  contentions,  assertions  or  admissions;  and  when  any 
such  implied  contention,  assertion  or  admission,  is  pointed  out  to  him,  he  is 
astounded  at  its  import,  denies  its  truth,  or  its  honorableness,  or  utility,  or 
virtue;  and  if  intellectually  honest  and  of  reasonable  intelligence,  imme- 
diately or  within  a reasonable  time  for  reflection,  retracts  one  or  both  of 
his  contended,  asserted  or  admitted  propositions  as  being,  in  his  now  better 
informed  opinion,  false,  or  DISHONORABLE  or  inutile  or  VICIOUS,  or 
at  least  in  need  of  material  rhetorico-logical  change.  If  in  such  case  of  as- 
tonishment at  its  false  import  he  does  not  make  such  retraction  or  change, 
then  he  is  in  a limited  chronic  confused  state  of  feeling  and  of  VOLITION, 
in  which  he  cannot  see  or  will  not  PERMIT  himself  to  see  or  to  admit,  a 
distinction  between  the  truth  and  the  falsity  of  certain  propositions  relating 
to  the  sphere  of  that  subject;  due  to  strong  delusion  or  a species  of  hypnotism, 
or  to  overwhelming  undisciplined  self-interestedness  which  may  be  as  strong, 
as  blind  and  as  irresponsible,  as  the  animal  instinct  of  self-preservation. 

11.  It  is  possible  that  in  many  instances  the  conduct  of  persons  of  every 
degree  of  intelligence  and  education  is  governed  by  unconsciously  enter- 
tained or  unrealized  evil-causing  major  premises  which  they  are  ASHAMED 
of  and  ready  to  ABHOR  when  brought  to  conscious  view  by  syllogistic  an- 
alysis; and  which  consequently  they  will  thereupon  strive  earnestly  to  get 
out  of  their  minds  and  frankly  and  gladly  replace  with  opposing  beneficent 
relevant  major  premises  that  accord  with  both  truth  and  their  humane  in- 
stincts, and  thus  set  a rare  honorable  example  which  less  well-inforrned 
persons  and  our  children  would  feel  inclined  to  follow. 

12.  The  power  of  any  logically  trained  person  to  discover  exactly  and 
demonstrably  what  unexpressed  (implied)  major  premise  or  minor  premise 
or  conclusion,  that  he  himself  or  any  other  person  has  as  an  active  uncon- 
scious motive  or  force  in  his  mind,  who  has  expressed  himself  in  an  enthy- 
meme (a  nigh  universal  mode  of  expression),  is  one  of  vast  and  far-reaching 
importance,  in  instances  in  which  some  better  informed  person  has  authority 
to  apply  corrective  instruction;  as  in  the  case  of  parents  or  teachers  or  any 


